Abortion still the stumbling block for ObamaCare

posted at 11:36 am on March 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

How big will abortion become in the final House vote on ObamaCare?  Even NPR now reports that it has arguably become the biggest issue in adopting the Senate version of the health-care overhaul.  The House version passed with the public option and with the Stupak amendment, giving progressives and moderates an uneasy draw in November.  Neither exist in the Senate version, and while both factions in the Democratic caucus are unhappy about that, the abortion problem may be too difficult to surmount:

Of the remaining issues with the potential to bring down the entire health overhaul effort, the one that lawmakers fear most is abortion.

Abortion is such a politically hazardous issue that sponsors of both the House and Senate health bills have said their object was to maintain the status quo. “It is not the intention of this bill to, as the speaker has said, to change the policy that has been in place for three decades,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (D-MD), on Tuesday. Hoyer was referring to what is known as the Hyde Amendment. It has barred federal funds from being used to pay for abortions since 1977.

But keeping the health bills abortion-neutral has proved impossible. And now the abortion language in the Senate-passed bill in particular could threaten the strategy Democratic leaders hope to use to get a final measure to President Obama’s desk for a signature.

Last year, I wrote about the difference between the Senate and House versions of the language barring federal funding of abortions.  The Stupak amendment explicitly barred federal funding for abortion services in any form in plain language.  The Senate version instead relies on the mechanism of the Hyde amendment, which only applies if Congress renews it annually as part of the appropriations process.  Once Congress fails to renew the Hyde Amendment (which bars HHS funds from being used for abortion services), the Senate language actually creates a mandate for the federal government to provide those funds.  The key language comes in Section 1303:

The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and (II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).

Clauses (i) and (ii) relate to abortion services that would normally be barred from federal funding.  Instead of barring the use of federal funds for abortions, the government would mandate abortion insurance once the Hyde amendment disappears, and would have to provide it by law if no private insurers offered it.  It’s a carte blanche for subsidized abortions.

The National Right to Life Campaign agrees, and plans on making this a critical vote:

But while abortion-rights groups may not like the Senate bill, pro-life groups downright hate it. “In total, the Senate bill is the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation ever to reach the floor of the House of Representatives,” said Douglas Johnson, federal legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “The so-called abortion limits that are in the Senate bill are all very narrow, loophole ridden, or booby-trapped to expire,” he said. …

National Right to Life’s opinion on the bill counts, because it scores votes as being pro-life or not. And Johnson has made it clear how his group will score this vote. “No member of the House of Representatives who is pro-life, or who wishes to have a record against federal funding of abortion could possibly vote for the Senate bill.”

That raises a big red flag for Democratic leaders in both houses. That’s because the way they are hoping to finish work on their health overhaul is for the House to pass the Senate’s bill — abortion language and all. Then they plan to pass a second bill that will incorporate a number of compromises between the House and Senate. For that they’ll useo the so-called budget reconciliation process that only requires 51 Senate votes.

That process won’t include changes to the Senate version of the abortion language.  While the Stupak amendment would easily pass the House again with bipartisan support, the Senate won’t offer it.  Ben Nelson (D-NE) insisted that any version of the bill would have to have it, but then retreated once he received his Cornhusker Kickback.

The question will be whether Stupak and other pro-life Democrats will vote for an abortion mandate mechanism in the end just to appease Pelosi and Obama.  NRLC bets that they won’t — but if they do, NRLC wants to make sure that it sticks to them in the midterm elections.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Why not tell them it’s a non-issue, given the economy and the deficit?

Chris_Balsz on March 3, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Quit giving us false hope Ed. This is a done deal no matter how you twist the pretzel.

Knucklehead on March 3, 2010 at 11:42 AM

The fact that it is unconstitutional and will trigger a constitutional crisis doesn’t occur to the socialist NPR.

BTW has anybody actually listened or watched this gubbermint funded pit on purpose?

tarpon on March 3, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Stick to your guns.

Mason on March 3, 2010 at 11:43 AM

What’s an infanticide or million between tyrants?

Maquis on March 3, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Why not tell them it’s a non-issue, given the economy and the deficit?

Chris_Balsz on March 3, 2010 at 11:40 AM
_______________

Yeah, the Federal Gov’t paying for abortion is a non-issue.

uknowmorethanme on March 3, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Once Congress fails to renew the Hyde Amendment

So, will “health care” be the justification for completely scraping the Hyde Amendment?

ninjapirate on March 3, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Ben Nelson (D-NE) insisted that any version of the bill would have to have it, but then retreated once he received his Cornhusker Kickback.

Cornhusker Kickback Aborted—film at 11:00

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Non issue? Why is it okay for people to protest subsidizing other people health care with their tax dollars yet it’s not okay to protest subsidizing the murder of the unborn with one’s tax dollars? It’s even more egregious than the former!

To compel a man to furnish contributions for the propagation of that which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical – Thomas Jefferson

Anyone who thinks it’s okay to violate a person’s conscience this way is no better than Obama and the Donks!

atheling on March 3, 2010 at 11:44 AM

“Game’s not over yet Lao Che” – Indiana Jones.

They’ve got the ball within field goal distance… but making the punt is a long way away…

Skywise on March 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

And yet some democrats claim that neither bill allows for federal funding of abortion. I’ve read the Senate bill, and all it does to prevent federal funds to abortion is reiterate the Hyde amendment, though it does nothing to prevent federal funds from being funneled from a state that only allows abortion under the conditions within the amendment to a state where Medicaid pays for abortions on demand.

Some believe that because Medicare won’t be paying for abortions directly that this is all a moot point, but I doubt that anyone from Mississippi wants to be paying for a voluntary 2nd trimester abortion in WA state.

RachDubya on March 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Harkin just told Politico that the Democrats will go the reconciliation route to pass healthcare . . . so enjoy your socialized medicine everybody and if you’re looking for it, you’ll find it crammed up your large posterior orifice. It’s all over, and this once great Republic is no more.

rplat on March 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

It is ridiculous this one point out of a five thousand page bill is yeah or neah for some reps. Like arguing about the color of the drapes on the Titanic as it is half way submirged.

Marcus on March 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Sen. Tom Harkin told POLITICO that Senate Democratic leaders have decided to go the reconciliation route. The House, he said, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders demonstrate to House leaders that they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate.

I believe that Nancy wanted a letter signed by 51 senators promising that they would vote for reconciliation before she’d put the Senate bill before the House. Could get interesting if someone signs on, and then wavers….

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 11:49 AM

It is ridiculous this one point out of a five thousand page bill is yeah or neah for some reps. Like arguing about the color of the drapes on the Titanic as it is half way submirged.

Marcus on March 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

No it is not…

ninjapirate on March 3, 2010 at 11:49 AM

They will stick to their guns…or retire. Stupak, and his 10-20 joiners, have made this a signature issue for their campaigns. The only way to violate it now is to acknowledge that it means your job. Maybe they will but I find it hard to believe they are willing to just concede 20 House seats to the Rs like that. It’s the equivalent of the liberals voting to end Affirmative Action and the Voting Rights Act.

Rocks on March 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Marcus, I see it a bit differently. It’s a major sticking point, one that might sink the entire bill. Sure there are bigger problems in the bill, but if abortion is what stops it, I’ll be thrilled.

Vera on March 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Thank you, Stupak, for making this an issue!

Enoxo on March 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Harkin: Reconciliation is a go

Sen. Tom Harkin told POLITICO that Senate Democratic leaders have decided to go the reconciliation route. The House, he said, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders demonstrate to House leaders that they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate.
Harkin made the comments after a meeting in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office including Harkin and Sens. Baucus, Dodd, Durbin, Schumer and Murray.

Pelosi must be mortgaging the whole party’s slush funds to reach her majority needs. Hope her offer includes free courses in cliff-diving.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM

And yet there are so many on here who ridicule the Pro-Life movement.

jay12 on March 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Harkin just told Politico that the Democrats will go the reconciliation route to pass healthcare . . . so enjoy your socialized medicine everybody and if you’re looking for it, you’ll find it crammed up your large posterior orifice. It’s all over, and this once great Republic is no more.

rplat on March 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Agreed.

So when *does* it become permissible to discuss inevitable next steps?

Midas on March 3, 2010 at 11:53 AM

The point of my snark is, rather than being a totally irrelevant millstone around the neck of swinging fiscal conservatives, social conservative ideology lends moral support, because it is based on national principles publicly regarded as superior to political theory.

Chris_Balsz on March 3, 2010 at 11:54 AM

So what happens if the House passes the Senate bill….and then the Senate’s unable to deliver the “fixes” using reconciliation?

Doughboy on March 3, 2010 at 11:55 AM

No it is not…

ninjapirate on March 3, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Yes it is.

If this Titanic of a bill passes, we’re sunk even if one of its provisions was to totally defund Klanned Parenthood nationwide.

As wrong as it is, at present it’s as destructive as adding a few sticks of TNT to the Hugh-Jass crate full of explosives you’re about to light the fuse on.

Dark-Star on March 3, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Let’s see. According to Harkin, Nancy won’t move until Harry assures her he has the votes and can keep the votes.

Thus, Nancy probably does not have the votes, but needs Harry’s assurances to get them. Harry’s assurances can’t do much about the Stupak group in the House.

Harry also might have trouble if he tries to add Stupak language to reconcilation (assuming he can), because he might lose some of his pro-choice senators with Stupak. Of course, he can always assure them that there will be an immediate lawsuit in a friendly liberal federal court in which the right to a federally subsidized insurance policy with elective abortion coverage will be asserted.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Did I miss something? Is it ‘use blurry picture day” on Hot Air or something?

Diogenes of Sinope on March 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

So what happens if the House passes the Senate bill….and then the Senate’s unable to deliver the “fixes” using reconciliation?

Doughboy on March 3, 2010 at 11:55 AM

This is the worst case scenario for the Dems. They have already lost the right and center. They would then lose the left too. You would see in excess of 100 Dem incumbents in the House go down to primary challenges or the Repubs and the only Dem in the Senate safe would probably be Schumer.

Rocks on March 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

I don’t get it. The Hyde amendment still applies.

AnninCA on March 3, 2010 at 11:59 AM

That process won’t include changes to the Senate version of the abortion language. While the Stupak amendment would easily pass the House again with bipartisan support, the Senate won’t offer it. Ben Nelson (D-NE) insisted that any version of the bill would have to have it, but then retreated once he received his Cornhusker Kickback.

It is ironic…
Ben Nelson could have saved them,
But they bought him off.

If they had listened,
And given in to Nelson,
This is a done deal.

“Such a tangled web…”
And “Cheaters never prosper…”
Some words to live by.

Haiku Guy on March 3, 2010 at 12:00 PM

So what happens if the House passes the Senate bill….and then the Senate’s unable to deliver the “fixes” using reconciliation?

Doughboy on March 3, 2010 at 11:55 AM

The Senate bill becomes the law. Obama will sign it just to have any health bill to sign. Coverage doesn’t kick in until 2013. He doesn’t care.

This is why Nancy insists on assurances of some kind from Harry that reconciliation will pass the Senate, and will pass before the House leaves for the Easter recess and gets an earful from the voters.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:01 PM

… Harry also might have trouble if he tries to add Stupak language to reconcilation (assuming he can), because he might lose some of his pro-choice senators with Stupak. Of course, he can always assure them that there will be an immediate lawsuit in a friendly liberal federal court in which the right to a federally subsidized insurance policy with elective abortion coverage will be asserted.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Plus, he can’t change anything regarding abortion in reconciliation, according to helmet-head Conrad.

JKahn913 on March 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I like how Obama put “health care reform” on the back burner in order to ‘focus laser like’ on jobs and the economy.

His ‘health care reform’ is DEAD.

GarandFan on March 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I don’t get it. The Hyde amendment still applies.

AnninCA on March 3, 2010 at 11:59 AM

For how long? The Hyde ammendment is purely a budgetary restraint. In would go down in the House in 5 minutes. The Dems in the senate could end it with Reconciliation as long as they offset the cost.

Rocks on March 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM

That process won’t include changes to the Senate version of the abortion language. While the Stupak amendment would easily pass the House again with bipartisan support, the Senate won’t offer it. Ben Nelson (D-NE) insisted that any version of the bill would have to have it, but then retreated once he received his Cornhusker Kickback.

The Kickback is supposed to come out in reconciliation, in a futile attempt to save his career. Without that attempted bribe to Nebraska voters, he will have to start explaining his position on Stupak again.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Ann, the Hyde amendment only deals with very specific appropriations. The funding for the healthcare bill would not be subject to its rules.

Vera on March 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM

The Senate bill becomes the law. Obama will sign it just to have any health bill to sign. Coverage doesn’t kick in until 2013. He doesn’t care.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Then Obama will have essentially given his seal of approval to all the bribes and kickbacks, not to mention taxpayer-funded abortion. And all of it done with a strictly party line vote.

Why even bother running for reelection in 2012 at that point?

Doughboy on March 3, 2010 at 12:05 PM

The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and (II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
Clauses (i) and (ii) relate to abortion services that would normally be barred from federal funding. Instead of barring the use of federal funds for abortions, the government would mandate abortion insurance once the Hyde amendment disappears, and would have to provide it by law if no private insurers offered it

–The Exchanges are done on a state-by-state basis in the Senate bill. They are not owned by the US Government or any state government. There’s nothing in this language that would allow or require the state or federal government to step in if no exchange plan provided abortion coverage.

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Why even bother running for reelection in 2012 at that point?

Because he knows everyone will yell RAAACIST if he were made a one term president. It’s already started.

Vera on March 3, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Ninja, they could outlaw abortion period in this monstrosity. Once the votes are counted, the bill would change to reverse it. Ask Ben Nelson about his vanishing “kickback thank you sucker we don’t need you anymore ha ha”.

Marcus on March 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

The key language comes in Section 1303…

Abortion-shmortion. Anything with 1303 sections should never make it to a vote in the first place.

percysunshine on March 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

I don’t get it. The Hyde amendment still applies.

AnninCA on March 3, 2010 at 11:59 AM
For how long? The Hyde ammendment is purely a budgetary restraint. In would go down in the House in 5 minutes. The Dems in the senate could end it with Reconciliation as long as they offset the cost.

Rocks on March 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM

–The Hyde Amendment has been passed annually in various forms since the late 1970s. It hasn’t matters who controlled Congress or the Presidency.

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Let’s see. According to Harkin, Nancy won’t move until Harry assures her he has the votes and can keep the votes.

Thus, Nancy probably does not have the votes, but needs Harry’s assurances to get them. Harry’s assurances can’t do much about the Stupak group in the House.

Harry also might have trouble if he tries to add Stupak language to reconcilation (assuming he can), because he might lose some of his pro-choice senators with Stupak. Of course, he can always assure them that there will be an immediate lawsuit in a friendly liberal federal court in which the right to a federally subsidized insurance policy with elective abortion coverage will be asserted.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Very well summed up Wethal. All this to get to the place where SCOTUS will throw out the whole bill because the government cannot constitutionally mandate health care to individuals. Stupid liberal socialist/marxist pigs.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Sean Higgins at Investors Business Daily reports:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters Tuesday that the leadership was mulling first passing a “fix” to the Senate health care bill, then passing the Senate bill it is supposedly fixing. The fix, in Capitol Hill-speak, is being called the “reconciliation bill.”

“We could pass the reconciliation first, have the reconciliation passed by the Senate and then pass the Senate bill,” Hoyer said.

This would reverse the usual order of passing a bill, then passing the additional “fix” bill. Hoyer said that while putting the legislative cart before the horse would be “more complicated,” it could be done.

This maneuver would boost the health care bill’s chances in the House by reassuring nervous lawmakers that they will not be abandoned by their Senate colleagues.

But Hoyer conceded it would be tricky to execute and seriously bend the procedural rules as well.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bart Stupak is still insisting that he won’t vote for the bill, and his problems extend beyond abortion. “We’re not going to walk the plank again just to see the Senate shut us down,” he told the Wall Street Journal. Yet the same article says there are at least six Democrats who voted against the bill the first time around who are now undecided.

Amspec blog.

Both houses want the other to go first. Procedurally the House must. Reconciliation is to be done after a bill has passed both houses.

What Hoyer is saying is that the Senate would really be amending their bill (which needs 60 votes) through a fake reconciliation (which only needs 51), and then sending the amended/reconciled bill over to the House.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM

–The Hyde Amendment has been passed annually in various forms since the late 1970s. It hasn’t matters who controlled Congress or the Presidency.

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Check the Senate language in the bill Jimbo. They plan on putting an end to “annual passage”.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM

My take is they are counting on us “un-educated” rubes to forget about this monster once it’s passed because it doesn’t kick in until 2013. Short memory spans or something. Disgusting to say the least and wrong. There are too many of us out here who will remember come next November.Hope it’s worth it to them. Sadly I think they believe it is worth it , you know,for the “good?” of the country.

sandee on March 3, 2010 at 12:11 PM

The Kickback is supposed to come out in reconciliation, in a futile attempt to save his career. Without that attempted bribe to Nebraska voters, he will have to start explaining his position on Stupak again.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Did they ever take out that golden goodie/tax break for the unions? How about the Louisiana Purchase?

Knucklehead on March 3, 2010 at 12:13 PM

It’s a miracle! Rep. Bart Stupak hits lottery. Announces retirement will commence after health bill passes.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Obama has effectively melded the administrative branch and the legislative branch into a functioning Marxist politburo and set the stage for his unique blend of fascism. Say goodbye to the “United States of America”, because it is no more.

rplat on March 3, 2010 at 12:16 PM

OT-but are you hearing Rush praising Bunning and calling for shut-down of government? Folks around here have been saying for weeks that We the People need to occupy the Congress and prevent “business as usual.” ENOUGH!

indypat on March 3, 2010 at 12:16 PM

My goodness. Do you mean to tell me that a socially conservative stance is all that stands between the American people and this abortion?

Who would have thought?

Scott H on March 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM

–The Hyde Amendment has been passed annually in various forms since the late 1970s. It hasn’t matters who controlled Congress or the Presidency.

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Check the Senate language in the bill Jimbo. They plan on putting an end to “annual passage”.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM

–No, it doesn’t. Look at Section 1303(a)(1)(B). It refers to appropriations for which the appropriation of Federal Funds are permitted to be used by HHS six months before the start of the plan year. And Section 1303(b)(2)(A) don’t allow tax credits or federal funds to be used for abortion services even if the Hyde Amendment doesn’t get renewed. And another section also requires the actuarial segreation of funds even if the Hyde Amendment doesn’t get renewed:

(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL
4 FUNDS.—
5 (A) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health
6 plan provides coverage of services described in
7 paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall
8 not use any amount attributable to any of the
9 following for purposes of paying for such serv10
ices:
11 (i) The credit under section 36B of the
12 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the
13 amount (if any) of the advance payment of
14 the credit under section 1412 of the Patient
15 Protection and Affordable Care Act).
16 (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under
17 section 1402 of the Patient Protection and
18 Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if
19 any) of the advance payment of the reduc
tion under section 1412 of the Patient Pro
tection and Affordable Care Act).
22 (B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.—In the case
23 of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the
24 issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not de25
scribed in subparagraph (A), segregate an
1 amount equal to the actuarial amounts deter2
mined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees
3 from the amounts described in subparagraph….

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Check the Senate language in the bill Jimbo. They plan on putting an end to “annual passage”.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Save your effort. When it comes to this issue and abortion, Jimbo is a proven liar.

highhopes on March 3, 2010 at 12:24 PM

My goodness. Do you mean to tell me that a socially conservative stance is all that stands between the American people and this abortion?

Who would have thought?

Scott H on March 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM

God Bless the Children!

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Did they ever take out that golden goodie/tax break for the unions? How about the Louisiana Purchase?

Knucklehead on March 3, 2010 at 12:13 PM

No, all that crap is still in there, as well as certain lucky counties in Florida with a high number of retirees getting to keep Medicare Advantage.

I recall there is a provision that requires all employers with more than 20 employees to offer health insurance, with the exception of construction companies, who have to offer coverage if they have more than 5 employees. Another union gift.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Save your effort. When it comes to this issue and abortion, Jimbo is a proven liar.

highhopes on March 3, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Thanks for the heads-up hh, but I promised Jimbo he wasnt stupid……he won’t let me down by proving me wrong.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Check the Senate language in the bill Jimbo. They plan on putting an end to “annual passage”.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Save your effort. When it comes to this issue and abortion, Jimbo is a proven liar.

highhopes on March 3, 2010 at 12:24 PM

1303(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—
7 (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
8 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services de9
scribed in this clause are abortions for
10 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap11
propriated for the Department of Health
12 and Human Services is not permitted,
13 based on the law as in effect as of the date
14 that is 6 months before the beginning of the
15 plan year involved.

–Yeah. I’m such a liar, high hopes. I’m surprised you didn’t at least get a warning yesterday for calling me a filthy lying bastard. I guess bastard is now okay to use.

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Did they ever take out that golden goodie/tax break for the unions? How about the Louisiana Purchase?

Knucklehead on March 3, 2010 at 12:13 PM

All of the negotiations post senate passage are gone. The house has to pass the senate version, the exact senate version, otherwise they have to go to a conference committee, and the result of the conference committee then has to pass both chambers, subject to filibuster in the senate.

This gambit is an attempt to get around the restrictions of the conference committee approach.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM

This gambit is an attempt to get around the restrictions of the conference committee approach.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM

And that truly fine American Jim DeMint already objected to a conference committee, and would no doubt do it again. A CC requires unanimous consent.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM

I don’t get it. The Hyde amendment still applies.

AnninCA on March 3, 2010 at 11:59 AM

No, not really. I already explained it here:

And yet some democrats claim that neither bill allows for federal funding of abortion. I’ve read the Senate bill, and all it does to prevent federal funds to abortion is reiterate the Hyde amendment, though it does nothing to prevent federal funds from being funneled from a state that only allows abortion under the conditions within the amendment to a state where Medicaid pays for abortions on demand.

Some believe that because Medicare won’t be paying for abortions directly that this is all a moot point, but I doubt that anyone from Mississippi wants to be paying for a voluntary 2nd trimester abortion in WA state.

RachDubya on March 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

They easily circumvent the Hyde amendment by taking federal funds and pushing them into Medicaid, since it is run by the states and many of them allow for abortion in circumstances not permitted by Hyde.

RachDubya on March 3, 2010 at 12:37 PM

There is also the sleeper issue of coverage for illegal aliens. I think there is a difference in the bills on that, too.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:41 PM

The point of my snark is, rather than being a totally irrelevant millstone around the neck of swinging fiscal conservatives, social conservative ideology lends moral support, because it is based on national principles publicly regarded as superior to political theory.

Chris_Balsz on March 3, 2010 at 11:54 AM

In December at the Commentary blog, Jennifer Rubin wrote:

…we have heard a lot in the last year from some snooty ostensibly-conservative pundits who would like to rearrange the conservative coalition and dump social conservatives overboard. However, the health-care bill is as good an example as we will find as to why this is politically idiotic. Here we see that it is social conservatives who remain the last men and women standing against liberal economic- and social-engineering projects. The numbers may just not be there for Stupak to disrupt the juggernaut, but it is instructive that the final battle is likely to be over abortion subsidies, not taxes or any other economic issue. Perhaps it’s not a good idea for conservatives to tell some of their most stalwart allies to get lost.

INC on March 3, 2010 at 12:44 PM

I don’t get it. The Hyde amendment still applies.

AnninCA on March 3, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Did you even bother to read Ed’s blog? Didn’t think so…

The Stupak amendment explicitly barred federal funding for abortion services in any form in plain language. The Senate version instead relies on the mechanism of the Hyde amendment, which only applies if Congress renews it annually as part of the appropriations process. Once Congress fails to renew the Hyde Amendment (which bars HHS funds from being used for abortion services), the Senate language actually creates a mandate for the federal government to provide those funds. The key language comes in Section 1303:
The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and (II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).

ladyingray on March 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Just the language that Jimbo quoated from the monstrousity shows how idiotic it is. Anything that requires that kind of language, in thousands of pages, is nothing but a boon to gov’t control and trial lawyer control over our lives. The beauracracy alone that will need to be created to implement all this will be staggering. Anyone who claims this will a) save money b) reduce health care cost or c) continue to provide people with teh same quality and quantity of care is nothing but a bald facted liar. I honestly don’t know how these people can look themselves in teh mirror.

Doesn’t the left ever get tired of having to lie to get its policies enacted? Don’t they ever ask themselves why they have to lie, if their grand ideas are so great?

Monkeytoe on March 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Thanks for the heads-up hh, but I promised Jimbo he wasnt stupid……he won’t let me down by proving me wrong.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I didn’t say anything about stupid. Some of the most artful liars are also the most intelligent. Bill Clinton, for example.

highhopes on March 3, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Ed, I am sorry but I have to agree with an earlier commenter, if there is any way come hell or high water that they can push this rock over the goal-line, theyll do it. If their mono-focus on HCR, over the objections of just about everyone but the Progressive Caucus, to instead address employment have been in vain, it is due to the fact that there is more in play here than meets the eye. That you continue to entertain the concept they will walk away from their demands to take over all healthcare delivery, shows that you are not entirely cognizant of the stakes on the table. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their committed co-horts collectivist calumny are crystal clear on the far reaching ramifications of passage of this bill entails.

HCR is central to accomplishing every-little-thing they havwe striven for over the last 130yrs. Get ObamaCare done, use it build momentum for an energy bill, and Wallah! The foundations for permanent power are laid leaving only to build the security ( National Civilian Security Force?) apparatus to enforce your designs in perpetuity.

As I am sure those familiar with my commentary are sick of hearing, Lenin posited that “Medicine is the keystone of Socialism”, it is the piece that locks all the rest of the structure in place. Of course anyone is free (for now) to assert that this is an overstatement, but the last I checked Vlad is pretty much considered possibly the most authority on this issue.

The reason they will want to coat-tail and ride the momentum garnered by HCR’s passage with Cap and Tax, is that provides the final piece to avail them of complete control of… well, EVERYTHING!

Drawing on Mark Steyn’s astute observations it be far less eloquently described thusly. If your “health” can be loosely described as all that which takes place inside that space occupied by your body, and your “enviroment”, which they assert is dependent on energy usage, is all that exists in the rest of space that is not occupied by your body, what precisley is the room left for that which falls outside of this?

Answer=NADA! You have established the rational to regulate and control all aspects of all that happens on earth. Given the grandiosity and hubris of the Progressives, it should not be too much after that that proclaim this authority to extend across the Universe and beyond.

Progressives are so certain of the rightousness of their cause that they feel completely justified in employing the maxim of “the ends, justfies the means”. When dealing with such fanatacism you are only safe when when your opponent is utterly destroyed.

It was Machievelli’s position that having once deposed a Prince, it was necessary to hunt down and eliminate all of the bloodline to reasonably secure a province into one’s possession. Of Progressivism and its collectivist kin, Syndicalism, Socialism & Communism etal, there is not the will to actually eradicate the threats posed to Individualist freedoms, it appears that we have “evolved” to the point where self-preservation is now beneath us.

It is there-fore premature to assume we are out the woods for the foreseeable future, now matter how remote the passage of ObamaCare now seems, the Collectivists will fight to the bloody end, if it comes to that, if not they will be back to try again camouflaged as some other crisis. Thi sfight alas, I fear will require eternal vigilance.

Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I cannot begin to express how much I do NOT want the blood of murdered babies on my hands….and yet here, in the land of the free, and home of the brave, it could be forced on me. It will be a sad day, if this somehow goes thru. :(

capejasmine on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Both the illegals and the pro-death crowd will get their legislation in this bill when it reach’s reconciliation, which Obama and the Dems intend on completing this process.

Sebelius explains in a televised inerview how the accounting trick in the Senate bill provides federal subsidies for health coverage for elective abortions.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Wethal’s link here proves the deception and arrogance the liberals will go to. In their feeble minds, it all for the good of the nation—Communist Republic of the United States—Premier Obama residing.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I don’t get it.
AnninCA on March 3, 2010 at 11:59 AM

We know that

JusDreamin on March 3, 2010 at 1:03 PM

PELOSI CONCEDES ABORTION, IMMIGRATION – Roll Call’s Emily Pierce and Jennifer Bendery report: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a major concession, signaling Tuesday that she may be ready to accept the Senate’s language on two issues that have divided her Caucus — immigration and abortion — in the name of getting an overhaul passed. Neither issue can be addressed under a reconciliation bill because stringent rules governing such bills require provisions to have a direct budgetary impact. ‘This is not an immigration bill. It is not an abortion bill. It is a bill about affordable health care for all Americans,’ she said. However, leaders in both chambers are still negotiating what would be included in a reconciliation package and cannot secure the votes for any deal until they reach an agreement. Democratic leaders were mum Tuesday when they emerged from a bicameral leadership meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and health care adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle.”

Politico.

Interesting. Illegal aliens and abortion are sticking points. And while Pelosi is conceding to the more liberal Senate language, her caucus won’t necessarily do so.

She is much weaker than she was last summer, and is likely out as Speaker and caucus leader come January. She doesn’t have the higher Obama approval numbers to use, either. of course, Rahm can still bribe and blackmail.

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 1:03 PM

‘yo Jimbo, can you post section 36B of the 1986 IRS code, section 1412 and 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the other relevent documents I will need to vet your claim?

Monkeytoe on March 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM

prezactly

DanMan on March 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM

It is there-fore premature to assume we are out the woods for the foreseeable future, now matter how remote the passage of ObamaCare now seems, the Collectivists will fight to the bloody end, if it comes to that, if not they will be back to try again camouflaged as some other crisis. Thi sfight alas, I fear will require eternal vigilance.

Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Liberty is always imperiled.

The only way to preserve Liberty is to ensure tyrants feel themselves imperiled.

Maquis on March 3, 2010 at 1:10 PM

HCR is central to accomplishing every-little-thing they havwe striven for over the last 130yrs. Get ObamaCare done, use it build momentum for an energy bill, and Wallah! The foundations for permanent power are laid leaving only to build the security ( National Civilian Security Force?) apparatus to enforce your designs in perpetuity.Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM

While I’m always fascinated by your insight Archimedes, I hope you are missing the “fly in the ointment”. Namely the tides of November. Call it the Massachusetts massacre, or the continuing meltdown of support by the whole Obama machine running far too radically to the left. Even if/when they pass this legislation, the ramifications will send a tsunami of shockwaves across the nation. 1994 may very well look like a 3.4 tremor compared to what may insue with a backlash of this magnitude. The best case scenerio, Obama even loses his veto power with the flood of Republicans taking the Senate and the House—all blamed on this one colossus powergrab.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 1:11 PM

What a cosmic coincidence.

As I was reading these comments, I just got a call from NRLC asking me to commit to some funding.

badtemper on March 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM

As I was reading these comments, I just got a call from NRLC asking me to commit to some funding.

I meant donation. I’ll already commit be forced to “funding” through Obamacare if it goes through.

badtemper on March 3, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Harkin just told Politico that the Democrats will go the reconciliation route to pass healthcare . . . so enjoy your socialized medicine everybody and if you’re looking for it, you’ll find it crammed up your large posterior orifice. It’s all over, and this once great Republic is no more.

rplat on March 3, 2010 at 11:45 AM

For his defeat to equal his windup, they both must be monumental.

JiangxiDad on March 3, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Of Progressivism and its collectivist kin, Syndicalism, Socialism & Communism etal, there is not the will to actually eradicate the threats posed to Individualist freedoms, it appears that we have “evolved” to the point where self-preservation is now beneath us.

It is there-fore premature to assume we are out the woods for the foreseeable future, now matter how remote the passage of ObamaCare now seems, the Collectivists will fight to the bloody end, if it comes to that, if not they will be back to try again camouflaged as some other crisis. This fight alas, I fear will require eternal vigilance.

Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I’m with you.

JiangxiDad on March 3, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Our Democrats need NAZI eugenics to cut costs.

tarpon on March 3, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM

A wise friend of mine, and a lover of the Greeks, reminded me the other day that Obama isn’t the Hydra, he’s just one of the heads.

JiangxiDad on March 3, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Just read an interesting article.

The abortion debate may get an interesting twist soon. The Nebraska Legislature is considering a bill to ban abortions performed twenty weeks into a woman’s pregnancy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/how_a_nebraska_bill_may_pivot.html

capejasmine on March 3, 2010 at 1:35 PM

yo Jimbo, can you post section 36B of the 1986 IRS code, section 1412 and 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the other relevent documents I will need to vet your claim?

Monkeytoe on March 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM
prezactly

DanMan on March 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM

SEC. 36B. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A
2 QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.
3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an applicable tax4
payer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
5 imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount
6 equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the tax7
payer for the taxable year.
8 ‘‘(b) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE CREDIT AMOUNT.—For
9 purposes of this section—
10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘premium assist11
ance credit amount’ means, with respect to any tax12
able year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts
13 determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all
14 coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the
15 taxable year.
16 ‘‘(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT.—The pre17
mium assistance amount determined under this sub18
section with respect to any coverage month is the
19 amount equal to the lesser of—
20 ‘‘(A) the monthly premiums for such month
21 for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in
22 the individual market within a State which
23 cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any
24 dependent (as defined in section 152) of the tax25
payer and which were enrolled in through an
26 Exchange established by the State under 1311 of
239
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,
2 or
3 ‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
4 ‘‘(i) the adjusted monthly premium for
5 such month for the applicable second lowest
6 cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer,
7 over
8 ‘‘(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the
9 product of the applicable percentage and the
10 taxpayer’s household income for the taxable
11 year………

SEC. 1412. ADVANCE DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF
5 PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST-SHARING
6 REDUCTIONS.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with
8 the Secretary of the Treasury, shall establish a program
9 under which—
10 (1) upon request of an Exchange, advance deter11
minations are made under section 1411 with respect
12 to the income eligibility of individuals enrolling in a
13 qualified health plan in the individual market
14 through the Exchange for the premium tax credit al15
lowable under section 36B of the Internal Revenue
16 Code of 1986 and the cost-sharing reductions under
17 section 1402;
18 (2) the Secretary notifies—
19 (A) the Exchange and the Secretary of the
20 Treasury of the advance determinations; and
21 (B) the Secretary of the Treasury of the
22 name and employer identification number of
23 each employer with respect to whom 1 or more
24 employee of the employer were determined to be
25 eligible for the premium tax credit under section
289
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
2 the cost-sharing reductions under section 1402
3 because—
4 (i) the employer did not provide min5
imum essential coverage; or
6 (ii) the employer provided such min7
imum essential coverage but it was deter8
mined under section 36B(c)(2)(C) of such
9 Code to either be unaffordable to the em10
ployee or not provide the required min11
imum actuarial value; and
12 (3) the Secretary of the Treasury makes advance
13 payments of such credit or reductions to the issuers
14 of the qualified health plans in order to reduce the
15 premiums payable by individuals eligible for such
16 credit…..

SEC. 1402. REDUCED COST-SHARING FOR INDIVIDUALS EN21
ROLLING IN QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an eligible insured
23 enrolled in a qualified health plan—
24 (1) the Secretary shall notify the issuer of the
25 plan of such eligibility; and
(2) the issuer shall reduce the cost-sharing under
2 the plan at the level and in the manner specified in
3 subsection (c).
4 (b) ELIGIBLE INSURED.—In this section, the term ‘‘eli5
gible insured’’ means an individual—
6 (1) who enrolls in a qualified health plan in the
7 silver level of coverage in the individual market of8
fered through an Exchange; and
9 (2) whose household income exceeds 100 percent
10 but does not exceed 400 percent of the poverty line for
11 a family of the size involved.
12 In the case of an individual described in section
13 36B(c)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the in14
dividual shall be treated as having household income equal
15 to 100 percent for purposes of applying this section….

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM

OH MY GOD! HE’S BRINGING OUT THE WHITE COATS AGAIN!

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 12:29 PM

I know I wasn’t that great in English, but what do you make of the last sentence you just quoted?

1303(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—
7 (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
8 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services
9 described in this clause are abortions for
10 which the expenditure of Federal funds
11 appropriated for the Department of Health
12 and Human Services is not permitted,
13 based on the law as in effect as of the date
14 that is 6 months before the beginning of the
15 plan year involved.

Seems they are planning on the goalposts being moved…

dominigan on March 3, 2010 at 1:52 PM

The question will be whether Stupak and other pro-life Democrats will vote for an abortion mandate mechanism in the end just to appease Pelosi and Obama. NRLC bets that they won’t — but if they do, NRLC wants to make sure that it sticks to them in the midterm elections.

If Obama has Pelosi and Reid working on “Plan C”, it won’t matter. It means that they’ve already accepted that the midterms will be a disaster, and perhaps they’ve entered into the delusional phase of actually thinking it would boost their chances if they got the health care reform enacted prior to November.

Either way, they seem to be oblivious to anything else at this point, other than throwing up smoke and mirrors and as many distractions as possible to keep the voting public’s attention off of what they’re doing behind closed doors to get something, anything, passed regarding health care.

KendraWilder on March 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Is anyone listening to Obama right now?

He is stating his plan will
1) not allow insurance companies to preclude pre-existing
2) not allow insurance companies to drop people if they get sick
3) not allow insurance companies to raise premiums really high
4) I forget what else

Claims all of this will save everyone money.

How will this reduce people’s premiums if the insurance companies don’t have any ceiling to their potential costs? They are going to raise the insurance premiums really high in advance.

This guy has circular logic.

karenhasfreedom on March 3, 2010 at 2:01 PM

The Dems have decided to get Socialized Medicine no matter what the short-term cost.Once Obamacare becomes law, even a new Republican-dominated congress cannot overturn it since they would need a 2/3 vote to overcome an Obama veto.

The ONLY hope is that some Democratic congressmen will not like falling on the sword of electoral defeat if they go for the nuclear option. I am sure, however, that Pelosi and Reid will see to it that that they enjoy their forced retirements in wealth and opulence.

MaiDee on March 3, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 12:29 PM
I know I wasn’t that great in English, but what do you make of the last sentence you just quoted?

1303(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—
7 (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
8 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services
9 described in this clause are abortions for
10 which the expenditure of Federal funds
11 appropriated for the Department of Health
12 and Human Services is not permitted,
13 based on the law as in effect as of the date
14 that is 6 months before the beginning of the
15 plan year involved.
Seems they are planning on the goalposts being moved…

dominigan on March 3, 2010 at 1:52 PM

–That’s the Hyde Amendment.

Jimbo3 on March 3, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Major Victory Eludes Pelosi’s Suicide Squad: Arcuri Looks Like a Flipper

A short while ago, I noted that Cao is a definitely switching from “yes” to “no” and that Dennis Cardoza and Bart Stupak look pretty darn likely.

Now Rep. Michael Arcuri, New York Democrat, looks like another flip against Pelosi. “Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) voted for House health care legislation in November. But he says he’s almost certain to vote no on the Senate bill when it comes up for a vote in the House later this month, according to a report in the Utica Observer-Dispatch.”

If the report that retiring Tennessee Democrat John Tanner refuses to flip is accurate, Pelosi needs at least three of the remaining eight “Suicide Squad” members to switch, and no more Democrats to flip to “no.”

Or, presuming Stupak and Cardoza vote no, if five more Democrats join Arcuri in flipping to ‘no’, then it doesn’t matter what the eight remaining Suicide Squad members do; it’s game over, at least for this version of the bill.

NRO

So far the Stupak coalition seems to be saying no to the Senate bill, even with reconciliation (since reconciliation cannot likely insert Stupak into the Senate bill, and as noted above, could lose Harry some pro-abortion senators).

Wethal on March 3, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I wish that rules + Democrats = no Democrats for a change.

JKahn913 on March 3, 2010 at 2:11 PM

While I’m always fascinated by your insight Archimedes, I hope you are missing the “fly in the ointment”. Namely the tides of November. Call it the Massachusetts massacre, or the continuing meltdown of support by the whole Obama machine running far too radically to the left. Even if/when they pass this legislation, the ramifications will send a tsunami of shockwaves across the nation. 1994 may very well look like a 3.4 tremor compared to what may insue with a backlash of this magnitude. The best case scenerio, Obama even loses his veto power with the flood of Republicans taking the Senate and the House—all blamed on this one colossus powergrab.

Rovin on March 3, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Tahnks for the compliment, I can only hope that my inadequate prose is sufficient to clarify the true extent of the perils we currently face.

Harkening back to a piece at about the time even Air-America proclaimed Obama’s actions the definition of Fascism…

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/please-do-not-feed-the-800lb-gorilla%e2%80%a6/

…I have actually been fairly concerned about that backlash you describe. The arrogance evident by the passage of this bill over the objections of those governed will be vociferous indeed. My worry is that what that level of disatisfaction might actually be used to justify as a response by the administration.

Let me explain, even with the fairly tight moderation here on HA sentiments expressed in these threads at times could be construed as militant. I have myself daintily skirted fairly close to the line in this regard, my discipline in not transgressing Ed & Allah’s rules on this is due to the high regard I have for access to these boards.

For want of a better term, if slightly less taciturn members of the Tea-Party ilk wereflirt with being “up-in-arms” over this, started mouthing off rashy or worse, I can see this bunch, with Napolitano at the helm, trying assert “security concerns”. This is the opportunity we do not wish to give them under any circumstances.

Nappy & Co. IMHO, are just itching to lump any and all resistance to their agenda as a Homeland Security matter. Under the foolishly short-sighted guidelines as set by the Bushies to establish a “National Emergency” were there an invocation broached, we would be in deep do-do. The draconian provisions provided by executive orders in such an instance indeed are reminiscent of the Gestapo, do please look into these, they warrant serious consideration.

In my worst bouts of paranoia, I have often wondered if provoking such an indination amongst the electorate as to result in “civil disturbances” may actually be harbored as their secret wish. That the Progressives are authoritarian by their very nature cannot be in doubt, that they and Obama’s “audacity” seemingly knows no bounds has been well established, might not such a backlash be essential to implementing their end-game?
Just wondering.

Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 2:13 PM

If your “health” can be loosely described as all that which takes place inside that space occupied by your body, and your “enviroment”, which they assert is dependent on energy usage, is all that exists in the rest of space that is not occupied by your body, what precisley is the room left for that which falls outside of this?

Answer=NADA! You have established the rational to regulate and control all aspects of all that happens on earth.

Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM

If they pull that sh*t, and then try to put a National Civilian (Civillain) Security Force out there to enforce it, it’s over. All the guns and ammo that have been purchased since the Obermensch was elected weren’t just for the fun of it. “When . . . it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them to another. . .”–it will be a civil war. Sadly, I agree with your fine analysis.

smellthecoffee on March 3, 2010 at 2:14 PM

might not such a backlash be essential to implementing their end-game?
Just wondering.

Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 2:13 PM

URP! Whoa, you’re more paranoid than I am. Or maybe more perspicacious. . .

smellthecoffee on March 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM

so in essence …. 50 million lost souls are protecting the freedoms of ALL AMERICANS…….. where were you for THEM.

Usually I end all my comment with roflmao …some how that feels disrespectful here.

Peace

donabernathy on March 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM

URP! Whoa, you’re more paranoid than I am. Or maybe more perspicacious. . .
smellthecoffee on March 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Name and town if you wish to opine!

JKahn913 on March 3, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Name and town if you wish to opine!

JKahn913 on March 3, 2010 at 2:28 PM

??

smellthecoffee on March 3, 2010 at 2:33 PM

If they pull that sh*t, and then try to put a National Civilian (Civillain) Security Force out there to enforce it, it’s over. All the guns and ammo that have been purchased since the Obermensch was elected weren’t just for the fun of it. “When . . . it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them to another. . .”–it will be a civil war. Sadly, I agree with your fine analysis.

smellthecoffee on March 3, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Ahh, right on cue!

This is what I am worried about as being in their game plan.

Don’t mistake my concerns for passivity, I can assure you I will not tolerate this march towards tyranny much longer either. However, being a vet and aware of the awesome technology available to our would be oppressers is not to be taken lightly. Comparisons to the success enjoyed by jihadists in Af-Pak against are apples and oranges.

Here where their security infrastructure to monitor most every commercial transaction, our movements through our GPS enhanced devices and everything else, make physical resistance a very tall order. Much more than most realize.

And were even a given such a backlash successful, would the tattered remnants of the state adequate to face our external threats? If one were to entertain tin-foil-hat notions (and I do, I admit it) that Obama’s overt desire is the reduction of American prominence, he’s in a classic win/win situation. Either he establishes an authoritarian Gov’t, atop what for now is the greatest military machine on earth, from wish to spread his narcisstic influence to facillitate “global governance”, or he leaves us so diminished due to internal strife, as to be inable to counter moves in this direction by t5he ambitionhs of others.

Either way its an immense step forward in the cause of a collectivist utopian nightmare!

Archimedes on March 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM

??

smellthecoffee on March 3, 2010 at 2:33 PM

It’s one of Bill O’Reilly’s catchphrase words-of-the-day.

JKahn913 on March 3, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2