Universal Health Care for America

[Guest David]

If Brown is elected this will force this President and the Democratic leadership to get off their high horse and stop force feeding their legislative agenda without what appears to us real representation. Maybe this President will get out and start selling, dealing and delivering on his promise to deliver on change we can believe in - change, that is inclusive, bi partisan and fully disclosed in a way that we can both access it and understand it.

 

Second: if Brown is elected and stops the current version of the Health Care bill (which, in my view is a good thing) I sincerely hope that it does not stop health care reform. We need it - we need to prioritize it relative to other things but we need to get through this and, at minimum, start to initiate real reform in the current state of the art.There are a lot of good ideas out there from the left and the right - let's scratch what we have, sort through it to find areas of common ground, add things or take out things that we cannot agree with and start to build a genuine bill that is inclusive, affordable and not perfect but a real start in a new direction.

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

Scott Brown at the Massachusetts Senate debate. "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedy's seat, it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the People's seat."

 

[Guest CFA]

Catholic Families for America Endorses Scott Brown for Massachusetts Senate Seat

 

CFA Executive Director: “For voters of conscience in Massachusetts, the choice is clear: Scott Brown is a traditional values public servant who would bring a refreshing voice of common sense to the U. S. Senate. We applaud him for reminding the political class in Washington that this is not ‘the Kennedy seat — it’s the people’s seat.’”

 

Dr. Kevin Roberts, executive director of the Catholic grassroots advocacy group, Catholic Families for America (CFA), announced the organization’s endorsement of Scott Brown in next Tuesday’s special election for the U.S. Senate.

”Scott would be such an upgrade on every major issue from the late Teddy Kennedy,” Roberts said. “Furthermore, his opponent, who espouses the same anti-life, anti-family, anti-values agenda that made Kennedy such a tragic figure to the Church, should give Catholic, Christian, and values voters an easy choice next Tuesday.”

 

Though CFA usually endorses candidates who adhere to the organization’s strict criteria on pro-life stances, Roberts cited Brown’s opposition to federal funding for abortion and support for parental notification — as well as his opponent’s radical views on those issues — as sufficient reasons to issue the endorsement.

“Our republic cannot withstand a long period of liberal, anti-family super-majorities in Congress,” Roberts explained. “If Scott Brown surprises the pundits next week, then we know that the end is near for the abject failures of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.”

 

In the closing days of the Massachusetts campaign, Catholic Families for America will implement its Catholic voter outreach model, which it is using in dozens of races this year. The group recently announced the beginning of a nationwide pro-family townhall tour that will occur throughout 2010. The first stop on the tour is in Wichita, Kansas, next Tuesday, January 19th — the same date as the Massachusetts election.

[Guest Soldier of God]

Politicians should do all things in the fear of God

and in observance of the Rule,

knowing that beyond a doubt

they will have to render an account of all their decisions

to God, the most just Judge.

[Guest Soldier of God]

National Right to Life Committee Letter to House Members on Abortion Provisions in Health Bills

 

To the Honorable Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

 

A final version of health care legislation, containing components of the differing bills passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, is currently being assembled through a process largely hidden from public view. We are writing to share the perspective of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in the 50 states, regarding the minimal criteria that we believe should apply to the provisions that implicate abortion.

 

We believe that the House-passed bill (H.R. 3962), as revised by the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was adopted by the House on November 7, 2009, by a vote of 240-194, meets the minimal requirements explained below, with respect to abortion policy. Regrettably, the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill (H.R. 3590) are far more divergent on abortion policy matters than one would understand on the basis of accounts in the news media. In reality, the Senate-passed bill contains provisions that would ultimately result in substantial expansions of abortion, driven by federal administrative decrees and federal subsidies. Any member of the House who does not wish to support legislation that will produce such sweeping pro-abortion results must make their support for a final bill, on both procedural and direct votes, contingent on inclusion of the elements described below.

 

We believe the list below embodies long-established federal policies on abortion (including the "Hyde Amendment" principles), as applied to the new programs created by the health care legislation. Every item below is also consistent with public opinion as expressed in poll after poll showing strong opposition to inclusion of abortion in health plans subsidized or run by the government. And, again, every item on the list is also consistent with the substance of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was included in the House-passed H.R. 3962.

 

(1) The federal government must not operate a program that funds elective abortions. The House-passed bill would create an insurance plan (the "public option") operated by the federal government, but the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, adopted on November 7, would prevent that government program from paying for abortions. The Senate-passed bill does not contain a "public option," and it seems doubtful that a full-blown public option will be included in the final bill. But the Senate-passed bill would create a new program under which the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would administer two or more multi-state insurance plans. The bill provides that "at least one" such plan would be subject to limitations on abortion coverage, implying that other federally administered plans could cover elective abortions, or perhaps even be required to do so by the federal administrator. NRLC believes that any OPM-operated plans should be prohibited from covering elective abortions, the same prohibition that Congress has long adopted with respect to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which is also administered by OPM.

 

(2) Federal funds must not pay the premiums of private health plans that cover elective abortion. Both the House and Senate bills would establish new programs that would provide federal subsidies to help tens of millions of Americans purchase health insurance. Under the House-passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a citizen who takes advantage of this new benefit would not be required to help pay for anyone else's abortions; if a subsidized person wished to purchase abortion coverage, the coverage would have to be purchased separately and with non-federal funds, which could be done through the Exchange. In contrast, the Senate bill would result in a situation in which private plans that cover elective abortion would qualify for the federal subsidy, but every enrollee in such a plan would find himself or herself subject to a requirement that he or she make a separate monthly payment into a fund used exclusively for elective abortions – an "abortion surcharge," if you will. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius recently insisted that this separate-payment requirement would apply to every person who participates in the exchange. As we read the language, the requirement would apply to anyone who enrolls in a subsidized plan that covers elective abortions, which would surely include many people who would learn of the "abortion surcharge" only after enrolling, but who would have no choice other than to pay the abortion surcharge or see their entire health coverage lapse.

 

(3) The final bill must contain restrictions on abortion funding that are bill-wide and that are permanent – not rigged to depend on annual reenactment of certain language on an appropriations bill. The House-passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment applies longstanding principles (no federal funding of elective abortion and no federal subsidies to plans that cover elective abortion) to everything in the House bill. In contrast, many of the "restrictions" in the Senate bill, in addition to their other deficiencies, are narrow, and also temporary – they are tied to whatever abortion policy is enacted each year on the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, to cover Medicaid. Yet, the health bill itself makes long-term appropriations for authorized programs, and these funds will flow outside of the regular appropriations process. These new structures should be governed by permanent abortion policy language written into the law -- not language that will produce a pro-abortion policy unless the pro-life side prevails in every subsequent year on an essentially unrelated appropriations bill. Limitation amendments on appropriations bills are a disfavored form of legislation, which expire annually, and which are often subject to being blocked by obscure procedures. (Indeed, just last month legislation was enacted that lifted a longstanding ban on the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion on demand in the District of Columbia – without either the House or the Senate ever having an opportunity to vote directly on the abortion funding language.) Any final health bill must permanently bar federal funding of abortion and federal subsidies for plans that cover abortion, for all of the programs covered by the bill – including the Indian health provisions and the funds appropriated to Community Health Centers (CHCs), both of which were added late to the Senate bill, by the Reid Manager's Amendment. We urge that you reject any proposal that would tie to the annual appropriations process the abortion policies that will govern the programs for which the health bill itself enacts authorizations or makes direct appropriations.

 

(Please note: The $7 billion added for CHCs are not covered by even a temporary restriction; these funds could be used to pay directly for abortions without restriction, as documented in an NRLC memorandum posted here: http://www.nrlc.org/...CommHealth.pdf)

 

(4) Since the legislation will permanently reauthorize Indian health programs, it should contain a permanent ban on Indian health programs providing elective abortions. Here again, the House-passed bill is satisfactory, because the Stupak-Pitts Amendment applies to the entire House-passed bill, including the Indian health reauthorization section. A permanent ban on funding of abortions through federally subsidized Indian health programs was actually approved by the Senate the last time that the Indian health reauthorization was on the Senate floor in amendable form (the Vitter Amendment, adopted February 26, 2008), but that legislation was never enacted. A permanent reauthorization of Indian health programs was added to the Senate health bill by the Reid Manager's Amendment, but without the permanent ban on funding of elective abortions.

 

 

(5) The final bill must contain airtight "anti-abortion mandate" language. By this, we mean language to prevent any agency or official given authority under the bill from issuing administrative mandates that would require any private health plans to cover abortions. The Senate bill contains a bewildering array of provisions that grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal entities to issue binding regulations on various matters. (One analyst recently wrote that the Senate bill "contains more than 2,500 references to powers and responsibilities of the secretary of health and human services," to say nothing of other federal authorities.) Some of these provisions could be employed in the future as authority for pro-abortion mandates, requiring health plans to cover abortion and/or provide expanded access to abortion, unless there is clear language to prevent it. For example, under the Mikulski Amendment, adopted by the Senate on December 3, the Department of Health and Human Services could force every private health plan to cover elective abortions merely by placing abortion on a list of "preventive" services – as Senator Ben Nelson pointed out in a statement in the December 3 Congressional Record, explaining his vote against the Mikulski Amendment, in which he also noted that Senator Mikulski had declined to accept a suggested revision to exclude abortion from the scope of this authority. While the Senate bill does contain some anti-mandate provisions, our analysis finds that these clauses are worded in such a way that they control only specific provisions of the bill, or are ambiguous in their scope. What is needed is the language that was contained in the amendment proposed by Senators Nelson and Hatch, which the Senate tabled on December 8, which said that "nothing in this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of abortion services or to allow the Secretary or any other person or entity implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of such services." The House bill already contains similar language, in Section 222 (e) (1).

 

(6) The final bill must have strong pro-life "conscience" language. At a minimum, the "conscience" protection provision for health care providers that was included in the House-passed health bill (H.R. 3962, Section 259, sometimes referred to as the "Weldon language") should be included in the final bill.

 

In conclusion: NRLC believes that enactment of the abortion-related provisions of the Senate-passed health care bill would ultimately result in substantial expansions of abortion, driven by federal administrative decrees and federal subsidies, and a vote to advance such legislation would be described in those terms in the NRLC congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress. In contrast, inclusion of the substance of the House-passed abortion language, on the six points cited above, would preserve long-established federal policies on abortion, and would fully address our concerns regarding the abortion policy issues.

[Guest Becky Todd]

In 2006, women aged 20–29 years accounted for the majority (56.8%) of abortions and had the highest abortion rates (29.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 years and 22.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 25–29 years); by contrast, abortion ratios were highest at the extremes of reproductive age. Adolescents aged 15–19 years accounted for 16.5% of all abortions in 2006 and had an abortion rate of 14.8 abortions per 1,000 adolescents aged 15–19 years; women aged ≥35 years accounted for a smaller percentage (12.1%) of abortions and had lower abortion rates (7.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 35–39 years and 2.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged ≥40 years). During 1997–2006, the percentage of abortions and the abortion rate increased among women aged ≥35 years but declined among adolescents aged ≤19 years and among women aged 20–29 years.

 

The majority (62.0%) of abortions in 2006 were performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation; few abortions were performed at 16–20 weeks’ gestation (3.7%) or at ≥21 weeks’ gestation (1.3%). During 1997–2006, the percentage of abortions performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation increased 11.7%; this increase largely was accounted for by procedures performed at ≤6 weeks’ gestation, which increased 66.3%. In 2006, the greatest percentage (87.6%) of abortions were performed by curettage (including vacuum aspiration, sharp curettage, and dilation and evacuation procedures), followed by medical (nonsurgical) abortion (10.6%).

[Guest Senator John Kerry]

The election to fill the Senate seat my friend Ted Kennedy held for forty-seven years is just one day away.

 

And the stakes couldn't be higher. If Martha Coakley wins, she would be the 60th vote we need to pass health reform, and Ted's life's work will become law.

 

But what if we don't all dedicate ourselves to getting as many folks out to the polls as possible? Reform could be defeated. Her Republican opponent has committed to be the 41st vote against standing up to the big insurance companies -- and we can't let that happen.

 

This is a tight race, and every single vote could make the difference.

 

Thank you for your help. Let's do this for Ted.

[Guest Jan Belvoir]

We need to just start over. Start over with Healthcare reform. Star over with elected officials. There is no real people in office anymore.

[Guest William N]

The Republican leadership really duped the Democrats on this bill. The damage is done. Obama should never had gone bipartisan with his politics. I understand there where Blue Dogs that were not following party line, but the President had enough votes to shove them aside in the process. Now the doors cannot be closed. I am voting for Martha Coakley, but we are going to lose the House and Senate.

 

I really am sorry that Hillary did not get voted in. She would have been a great President. Instead Republicans crossed party lines and voted Obama in the Primaries. Operation Chaos is going to go down in the history books as the most pivitol point in the start of this Millenium.

[Guest Shawn]

I am happy with the Democratic Party. This is an important issue and I am voting for Martha Coakley.

[Guest Carol]

I am 72 and pay $110.00 a month on health care. I am voting for Martha Coakley

[Guest Anne D]

President Clinton has called me. President Obama has called me. Martha Coakley has called me. I have received 10 automated calls. A volunteer called me. I will be voting tomorrow.

[Guest Corey Welford]

Both newspapers from Scott Brown’s home turf have now endorsed Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate. The Attleboro Sun Chronicle endorsed Coakley Sunday, joining the MetroWest Daily News that endorsed Coakley on January 10th.

 

In its editorial endorsement, the Attleboro Sun Chronicle wrote that “Our choice of Coakley may be surprising to some. Her major opponent is state Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, a local figure we have endorsed in the past for state Senate… There’s much to be said for endorsing a local candidate. However, we have an insurmountable problem. To paraphrase words Brown applied to his Democratic opponent, “he’s a nice man, but he’s wrong on all the issues.”

 

The Chronicle continued, writing that Coakley’s “jobs and economy platform is well-thought-out and detailed, while Brown hangs his hat on a return to free enterprise. Coakley has established herself as a leader. Her work on the foreclosure crisis in Massachusetts is evidence that she is ready to serve the people’s interests while dealing with the big players in Washington. She deserves your vote on Tuesday.”

 

The New Bedford Standard Times wrote that “if voters want forward movement, not gridlock, Coakley is the best choice…. In the attorney general’s office, Coakley has carved out a position of leadership. She returned millions of dollars to the state from Big Dig contractors, protected homeowners in foreclosure from sham rescue schemes, and earlier in her career, prosecuted high-profile criminal cases, including those of alleged sexual predators.”

 

The Berkshire Eagle wrote that “As an undistinguished back-bencher, Mr. Brown cast “no” votes, which is all he has promised to do as a U.S. senator. His ultra-conservative social views, which moved farther out to the fringe as the campaign continued, are not in keeping with the independents and moderate Republicans who comprise much of the state’s electorate.”

 

The Springfield Republican wrote that Coakley “has what it takes to represent the commonwealth with distinction and passion.” … That “the national Republican party joined the fray with a series of mean-spirited ads that only prove what we’ve believed for a long time: Brown would serve as a willing tool in the party’s battle to derail President Barack Obama’s agenda. A Brown victory would strip Democrats of their crucial 60th vote in the Senate and add to the deplorable gridlock in Congress that is threatening the nation’s future.”

 

Over the past three days, the New Bedford Standard Times, Berkshire Eagle, Springfield Republican, Daily Hampshire Gazette and the Attleboro Sun Chronicle have all endorsed Coakley. Those newspapers join the Boston Globe, Quincy Patriot Ledger, Brockton Enterprise, MetroWest Daily News, Greenfield Recorder, Milford Daily News, Dedham Transcript endorsing Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate.

 

Coakley became Massachusetts’ first female Attorney General in January 2007. Since then, she has established herself as a leader on a variety of issues affecting Massachusetts residents, including addressing the foreclosure crisis that has plagued so many families. She has a proven track record of taking on Wall Street and protecting consumers, recovering record settlements in enforcement actions from companies such as Goldman Sachs and Fremont Investment and Loan for violating consumer protection laws. As part of her Cyber Crime Initiative, Coakley revolutionized the tools available to prosecutors for fighting crime in the 21st century, ensuring that Massachusetts is on the cutting edge of public safety.

 

Coakley, 56, was raised in North Adams. She is a graduate of Williams College in Williamstown, MA, where she was a member of the first class admitted to the college that included female students. She received her law degree from Boston University School of Law in 1979. Coakley resides in Medford with her husband, Thomas F. O’Connor, a retired police Deputy Superintendent.

[Guest Gary]

Focus on the Family will broadcast the first Super Bowl ad in its history February 7 during CBS Sports' coverage of the game at Dolphin Stadium in South Florida.

 

The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life."

 

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the chance to partner with the Tebows and lift up a meaningful message about family and life comes at the right moment in the culture, because "families need to be inspired."

 

"Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive," Daly said. "They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values."

 

Daly added that all the funds to air the ad came from a handful of "very generous and committed friends" who donated specifically to support the project. No money from the ministry's general fund was used.

 

The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because the issue of life is one they feel very strongly about.

 

Daly chuckled at some of the "will-they-or-won't-they?" speculation in the media about whether Focus would indeed create a Super Bowl ad.

 

"Now that the ad has been shot, we're excited to tell people it's coming, because the Tebows' story is such an important one for our culture to hear," he said. "You won't want to miss it."

[Guest MARCH4LIFE]

Rally – 37th Annual March for Life

Stand Up Now — Unite for the Life Principles — No Exception! No Compromise!

 

WHEN: Friday, January 22, 2010, NOON

WHERE: The National Mall and 7th Street

 

March along Constitution Avenue, up Capitol Hill to the Supreme Court, and to the Congress.

Be sure to visit the office of your Congressman and two Senators to let them know that you are here on a work-day in mid-winter to overturn Roe v. Wade on behalf of the innocent preborn boys and girls, and to UNITE ON THE “LIFE PRINCIPLES!"

 

March for Life Fund will send a letter to Washington Officialdom explaining the Theme and Life Principles — a letter to the President, Supreme Court Justices, and each Member of the House and the Senate

[Guest Soldier of God]

If Brown wins Democrats are considering having the House pass the Senate bill even though large segments of the Democratic caucus oppose various sections of the Senate bill -- including its provisions allowing abortion funding.

 

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops asked Catholics to help stop inclusion of abortion funding in health care reform. Vulletin inserts and pulpit announcements were sent to almost 19,000 parishes across the country.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ejFu88Ckc

[Guest Susan A. Fani]

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to what Massachusetts senatorial hopeful Martha Coakley said last night in a WBSM interview:

 

When Martha Coakley, a Roman Catholic, was asked whether she supports conscience rights for health care employees, she offered a resounding “NO.” So completely wedded to the extremists in the pro-abortion community, Coakley would not allow Catholic doctors and nurses—who unlike her accept the teachings of Catholicism—to recuse themselves from participating in procedures they find morally repugnant.

 

Coakley said that if she were asked to consider a bill that would say "if people believe that they don't want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade, that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer is no." When asked by host Ken Pittman about the rights of Catholics who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, Coakley offered the separation of church and state mantra. Pittman then said, “In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.” Coakley conceded that point but hastened to add, “you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.” Translated: You really don’t have a right to exercise your religious-liberty objections.

 

This is the opinion of the attorney general, the chief law enforcement agent in the state of Massachusetts. She effectively told practicing Catholics who work in the health care industry that they ought to get another job. As far as she is concerned, those who invoke a right to conscientious objection—a staple of religious liberty—should lose.

 

President Obama says he supports conscience rights for health care workers. The Catholic bishops support conscience rights. Survey after survey show that the American people support conscience rights. But Martha Coakley does not — she says they’re all wrong. Glad to know which side of religious liberty she is on.

[Guest Human]

The Democrats have been talking about Health Care Reform, but when you are so willing to throw unto the streets a Person like Joe Knight who IS Disabled; It does not show "Not even in the Nation’s Capitol" That Washington D.C. Democrats are Serious about Health Care Reform.

[Guest Amy]

Who is Joe Knight? No disabled person should be thrown into the streets.

 

Health Care Reform is dead. Brown is the new black. He is sooooooooooooo sexy. He is going to be our next President.

[Guest Human]

Amy the post will be listed under the Screen Name Luke Wilbur;

 

http://www.dcmessageboards.com/index.php?showtopic=16372&st=300

 

 

<But to be Frank, if the Washington D.C. democrats can't even help out Joe, what makes any of us think that they will get health care reform right. When they CAN'T even get Joe the help he needs.

 

Joes plight is not political, but what the Washington D.C. democrats did is reprehensible.>

[Guest Azalea]

Here are some scary stats.

 

$936,267,403: The amount donated to Congress by the health care industry.

 

$20,915,072: The amount donated to President Barack Obama by the health care industry.

 

15,385: The average number of Americans who lost their health insurance each day in 2009.

 

3,330: The number of health care industry lobbyists who played a role in writing the current health care “reform” bill.

 

428 percent: The increase in profits at 10 of the nation’s largest health insurance companies between 2000 and 2007.

72 percent: The percentage of Americans who support universal health care coverage, according to a CBS News/NY Times poll.

[Guest Travis]

Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.

 

Brown tells ABC's "This Week" that he disagrees with his party's position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion should be overturned.

 

Brown says the abortion question is one that's best handled by a woman, her family and her doctor.

[Guest DC38]

It is interesting to note that Senator Mitch McConnell received $932,207 from the insurance industry and $2,758,468 from medical professionals over his career.

[Guest Levana Layendecker]

Yesterday, we learned that in 2009, during the worst recession this country has seen in generations, the insurance companies posted record profits and cut millions of people from their rolls. They'll stop at nothing to kill health care reform, and their Republican buddies are eager to help them.

 

Congress needs to hear us loud and clear. No more excuses. We voted them into office for a reason - to bring change, and that starts with guaranteeing everyone quality, affordable health care.

 

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/hcan_report_big_insurers_break_profit_records

[Guest Fustrated Democrat]

What happened to being bipartisan? Now I am seeing the Democrats are going to try forcing bill reconciliation on their own.