PDA

View Full Version : Small Government Republicans, ladies and gentlemen



Qtec
03-28-2011, 05:51 AM
link (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/02/940765/-HR-3-hides-even-bigger-dangers-than-redefinition-of-rape)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In H.R. 3, Republicans revive the mid-90s "Istook amendment" theory of the fungibility of money to include under their definition of "taxpayer funding for abortion" all tax deductions, credits or other benefits for the cost of health insurance, when that insurance includes under its plan coverage for abortion.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>So if a company provides health care benefits for its employees, and the plan they pay for includes coverage for abortion, the company becomes ineligible for the normal federal tax deductions and credits that are the usual reward for providing benefits. That's a gigantic tax increase. If you pay for your own coverage directly, no deductions, credits, etc. for you, either, if the plan you select offers abortion coverage. Whether you or someone on your plan ever gets one or not. All deductions associated with your health care costs are disallowed.</span>

That, apparently, will impact approximately 87 percent of private insurance plans on the market today. And that included, until recently, the plan provided to employees of the Republican National Committee.

The RNC, of course, dropped that coverage like a hot potato once it "found out" what the facts were. But why did they do it?

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Not a word about money from taxpayers. Steele surely didn't know that Republicans in the House would later introduce such a bill. But then again, the fungibility theory underlying the bill has been in the Republican bag of tricks since at least 1995. It just didn't occur to Republicans that it might apply to them, just like it never occurred to them to check whether they were paying for abortion coverage. But now that they've safely jumped out of the way, the other 87% of you are screwed.

And by the way, there's no difference or barrier between targeting abortion and doing the same in the future for benefit plans that cover contraception.

Or for that matter, chiropractic or other medical alternatives. Or medicine in general. (Ask a Christian Scientist about that.)

Or, I suppose, prohibiting the use of federal funds granted to local police departments that might be dispatched to respond to emergencies at that company.

Frankly, I'm not sure why, under this theory, individuals should even be eligible for federal tax deductions, credits, etc. if they make private purchases from such a targeted company. After all, all money being fungible, it could well be said that you're using "federal dollars" that are in your pocket by virtue of any tax deduction you take (whether related to health care or not) when you buy products from such a company, and that those "federal dollars" are going into the coffers of a company that uses them fungibly with the dollars they're using to pay for their health care plan.

"Small Government Republicans," ladies and gentlemen. </div></div>

A bunch of religious nutjob, white middle aged men want to impose their will on all women and they want to use the power of the Govt to do it.

So much for less Govt intrusion.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-28-2011, 06:56 AM
http://fatherfolk.com/politics/republicans-want-your-uterus/
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Republicans Want Your Uterus</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Republicans are selling to the American people the idea of less government. There is a portion of Americans that are buying into this idea. The GOP and The Tea Party are moving forward with de-funding community oriented programs such as: Planned Parenthood, Corporation Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, food services and Social Security among others. They are also on the crusade of killing Healthcare reform for over 32 million Americans, and all of this on the platform of “less government”. They did vote to pour $7 million into advertising on NASCAR cars. Way to have your priorities straight, forget the millions of Americans that need help. The government will go on an advertising campaign for the military by placing advertisements on racing cars. If Americans want food, shelter, healthcare and an education they’ll have to join the military to receive any of it. What a fucking brilliant way to grow those enlistment numbers. Less government?
Less government except when it comes to the body of a woman. Republican and The Tea Party want to de-fund Planned Parenthood to make it harder on women to have abortions. Abortions account for 3% of the annual health services of Planned Parenthood. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice you have to recognize that Planned Parenthood offers more health services for the 5 million women and men that walk through their doors every year, than they offer abortions.

The Catholic Church is already policing a woman’s body in the hospitals they own and operate; we don’t need the GOP involved as well. Last year a Nun that worked as a hospital administrator was excommunicated for allowing an abortion to be performed to save the mother’s life (read full story here). The Catholic Church is deciding the value of a woman’s life according to their personal belief structure and it‘s 100% legal because it‘s religion. Stop forcing your beliefs into my life. What about my beliefs? What about my belief that my wife’s life is worth more to her, me and her family than your unfounded belief system?

Republicans introduced legislation trying to redefine rape as forcible rape in an attempt to ban the use of tax-payer money to pay for abortions due to a woman being raped. Essentially, what these guys were trying to do was tell women that their rape doesn’t count as real rape because it doesn’t meet their definition of “forcible rape” and they then would deny the woman an abortion. Fortunately, this was dropped a couple of weeks ago.

Georgia Rep. Bobby Franklin (R) introduced a bill that says according to CNN:
“Franklin’s bill would eliminate the word “victim” from statutes dealing with stalking, rape, obscene telephone contact with a child and family violence and replace it with “accuser.”?

Franklin is at it again. This time he has introduced a bill that will require police to investigate every miscarriage as if it were a murder. He wants to ensure that any woman that has a miscarriage didn’t do so intentionally. Under Franklin’s bill women must present proof the miscarriage happened without intervention or face felony charges.

Via Daily Kos:
“Franklin wants to create a Uterus Police to investigate miscarriages, and requires that any time a miscarriage occurs, whether in a hospital or without medical assistance, it must be reported and a fetal death certificate issued. If the cause of death is unknown, it must be investigated. If the woman can’t tell how it happened, than those Uterus Police can ask family members and friends how it happened. Hospitals are required to keep records of anyone who has a spontaneous abortion and report it. Yup, we’ve been waiting for someone to suggest this–and Franklin has. Needless to say, there are no exceptions allowed. Not for rape victims. Not for incest victims. Not to save the life and health of the mother (the fetus must get equal care).”

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Less Government is their platform. They’re saying to the American people, “You don’t want the government in your life telling you what to do…except when it goes against my personal religion. Then I will force it upon you and your family.”</span>This sounds like a Republican death panel to me that’s under the guise of God.</span>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'> "When Fascism Comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag, waving a cross." </span> </span>

Gayle in MD
03-28-2011, 07:05 AM
May 19, 2010
Last November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had "right heart failure," and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was "close to 100 percent."

The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.

"They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."

But the hospital felt it could proceed because of an exception — called Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church's ethical guidelines for health care providers — that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother. Sister Margaret McBride, who was an administrator at the hospital as well as its liaison to the diocese, gave her approval.

Documents
Church Q&A On Abortion, Sister Margaret McBride And Excommunication
The woman survived. When Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted heard about the abortion, he declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated — the most serious penalty the church can levy.

"She consented in the murder of an unborn child," says the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. "There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."

Ehrich adds that under canon or church law, the nun should be expelled from her order, the Sisters of Mercy, unless the order can find an alternative penalty. Ehrich concedes that the circumstances of this case were "hard."

"But there are certain things that we don't really have a choice" about, he says. "You know, if it's been done and there's public scandal, the bishop has to take care of that, because he has to say, 'Look, this can't happen.' "

A Double Standard?

But according to the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, the bishop "clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated." Doyle says Olmsted could have looked at the situation, realized that the nun faced an agonizing choice and shown her some mercy. He adds that this case highlights a "gross inequity" in how the church chooses to handle scandal.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, shown here in 2003, declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated because she allowed a patient at a Catholic hospital to get an abortion. But some say her quick punishment stands in stark contrast to the protection many pedophile priests have received from their bishops.

"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Doyle says no pedophile priests have been excommunicated. When priests have been caught, he says, their bishops have protected them, and it has taken years or decades to defrock them, if ever.

"Yet in this instance we have a sister who was trying to save the life of a woman, and what happens to her? The bishop swoops down [and] declares her excommunicated before he even looks at all the facts of the case," Doyle says.</span>Ehrich agrees that sexual abuse can't be tolerated. But he says neither can McBride's actions.

"She said, 'Yes, you can kill that unborn child.' That's a heinous act. And I'm not going to make a distinction between what's worse. They're both abhorrent," Ehrich says.

Ehrich says the nun can be admitted back into the Catholic community by going to confession and repenting. McBride still works at the hospital in another position. Whether she is allowed to remain in her religious order, Erich says that is up to the Sisters of Mercy.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

pooltchr
03-28-2011, 07:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The GOP and The Tea Party are moving forward with de-funding community oriented programs such as: Planned Parenthood, </div></div>

Planned Parenthood has every right to exist and do what they do....but not with tax dollars.

Steve

Chopstick
03-28-2011, 08:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In H.R. 3,</div></div>
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">OK. Stop right there. Did you read the bill? Do you have any idea what is in it? It's not that long.</span>

Gayle in MD
03-28-2011, 08:41 AM
<span style="color: #990000"> Republicans have broken with the Constitution, our policy of equal rights, the right to personal privacy, the right to self determination, the Separation of Church and State, their on-going attacks on American Principles, and the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, seem to go amost un-noticed, by many in this country.

I shudder to think how our young people are being impacted by these RW religious nutjobs, who continue to attempt to turn this country into a fascist nation, a religious theocracy, where no one is safe from their outrageous audacity!!!

I really don't know how much more obvious it could get, that Republicans are un-American, in their policies, and their push to control the personal lives of all Americans.

What a huge threat to Democracy! they truly are on par with the Taliban! The value of a woman's life, is now subject to their religious dictatorship.

PIGS! PURE PIGS!

G. </span>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>To return in part to Digby's point, take the rape provisions out, and still left with a disastrous bill, just on the issue of choice alone. But to go beyond that, you're in fact got a bill that paves the way for using the tax code to select every American's health care options for them, direct from Washington.

(Now, who do we know that particularly hates that idea?)

If the anti-choice zealots can successfully enact a law that gives the federal government the inroads and leverage to impose tax penalties on the availability of abortion services coverage, what prevents their using the same power to penalize contraception coverage? And that's just the smallest theoretical step you can make from the abortion issue. Nevermind that the theory is the same whether they want to reach into other areas of medical coverage, or anything else they'd like to get their hands on. Same sex partner benefits, for instance? Health benefits won through collective bargaining by public employees' unions? You can all certainly imagine more.

And you should try to imagine them. I would encourage you to try to think about how they could come up with a way to burn your own favorite issue group, no matter what it might be. Because this theory gives them the power to do it. And if it's left to the choice community advocacy groups to fight the battle on their own, it'll be over pretty quickly, and the "Small Government Republicans" will be right on your doorstep next.</span>. </div></div>

G.

pooltchr
03-28-2011, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In H.R. 3,</div></div>
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">OK. Stop right there. Did you read the bill? Do you have any idea what is in it? It's not that long.</span> </div></div>

Don't you think you are asking an awful lot??

Steve

LWW
03-28-2011, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In H.R. 3,</div></div>
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">OK. Stop right there. Did you read the bill? Do you have any idea what is in it? It's not that long.</span> </div></div>

That's funny.

You know Snoopy and Gee would never actually read the bill as long as they have the DailyKook to tell them what it means and what they think.

LWW &lt;--- Hasn't read the bill either.

Qtec
03-28-2011, 02:29 PM
My first post explains what's in it, and yes I have read it.

Forcible rape?

Q

Qtec
03-28-2011, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if a company provides health care benefits for its employees, and the plan they pay for includes coverage for abortion, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the company becomes ineligible for the normal federal tax deductions and credits that are the usual reward for providing benefits. That's a gigantic tax increase.</span> </div></div>

Did you read it?

Q

Gayle in MD
03-28-2011, 06:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if a company provides health care benefits for its employees, and the plan they pay for includes coverage for abortion, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the company becomes ineligible for the normal federal tax deductions and credits that are the usual reward for providing benefits. That's a gigantic tax increase.</span> </div></div>

Did you read it?

Q </div></div>

They must get links to the Bill, from Fox, lol. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
03-28-2011, 06:38 PM
What exactly make females valuable???

You sure dont present any traits that could be considered such.

pooltchr
03-28-2011, 06:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What exactly make females valuable???

You sure dont present any traits that could be considered such.

</div></div>

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Steve

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:54 AM
OH DEAR!