"Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- As Democratic leaders in Congress plot their next move on how to get the pro-abortion Senate health care bill through the House, a new strategy has developed apart from the reconciliation plan that has pro-life advocates concerned they could pass the bill without taking a vote on it.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter has developed an idea she has not yet presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi but is one that received considerable attention from political observers yesterday.
When the House considers any legislation on the floor, it first adopts a Rule for debate that sets the parameters for debate, amendments and other procedures."
Has rule been used before - who knows and who cares. It is like speeding and telling the officer that others are speeding also. The issue is that it has never been tested by the courts and now may or may not be the ideal time to test it as it surely will be tested as I have heard that folks are ready to rush tok the courts to do so,
Another example of Fox and "friends" giving an old rule a new name to make it sound bad. Last week it was "nuclear option" to describe a simple up or down majority vote. Right, majority rule is the "nuclear option." What bullshit.
Quote:
"Deem and Pass" has been used often and by both parties. Democrats point out that Republicans used it quite a bit in the 1990s, in fact -- though not for something quite as large as this.
The real story is, "how dare those bastards extend health care to 31,000,000 uninsured American voters!" How dare they!
That's the real bottom line issue for Republicans. 31,000,000 people is a lot of voters, lots of families. They won't be inclined to vote in Republicans who will promise to piss their health insurance away.
I think that's the argument that President Obama settled upon to sell the idea to the Democrats in Congress. 31,000,000 happy Americans, that's a lot of votes to go after, and a lot of votes to sneer at if they vote against the bill. Add to that the millions who will get immediate relief from the burden imposed by the insurance industry tricks such as unfair use of pre-existing conditions, and you have a very successful political event.
Meanwhile the losers will continue to act like losers. It's all they've got.
Quote:
Tea Party activists "will storm Capitol Hill this morning, spending the day rallying and protesting against President Obama's health-care bill and demanding meetings with targeted members."
But on the eve of its final coordinated push to kill health care reform, one of the Tea Party movement's key leaders and funders -- former Republican leader and lobbyist Dick Armey, head of the group FreedomWorks -- said the battle was likely lost.
At a press conference on Monday, Armey acknowledged that Democrats "will most likely pass health care reform legislation that has been debated for the last year and is expected to come to a vote this week."
Last week, The Daily Caller's Alex Pappas reported that the Republican National Committee was "paying for signs and political buttons used by Tea Party groups" for today's "Code Red" protests against health care reform.
The items, paid for by the RNC, were on full display at a Friday press conference of Tea Party activists in Washington. At the afternoon event at the Capitol Hill Suites, activists in town for the "Take the Town Halls to Washington" project passed out the red-white-and-blue buttons and signs emblazoned with the words "Listen to Me!"
As Pappas pointed out, the RNC's involvement here was a bit of a thorny issue, given that the Tea Partiers haven't been quick to allow themselves to be subsumed within the greater Republican establishment. But if you see the signs today, you might end up missing the connection to the RNC entirely. That's because the RNC took the unusual step of covering up its involvement. David Weigel of the Washington Independent reports that a black sticker has been placed over the RNC's label at the bottom center of the signs. Apparently, this is a cunning enough stratagem to keep protesters from discovering the RNC's involvement.
Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1910 Location: Michigan
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 07:51 pm Post subject:
But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively
========================================
You've been hearing a lot this week about the Slaughter Solution, the rule devised by House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York whereby the House would pass an Obamacare reconcilliation bill via a rule that "deems" the chamber to have voted for the Senate version of Obamacare even though no such recorded vote was actually taken.
Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.
The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.
"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."
Republicans quickly condemned the strategy, framing it as an effort to avoid responsibility for passing the legislation, and some suggested that Pelosi's plan would be unconstitutional.
"It's very painful and troubling to see the gymnastics through which they are going to avoid accountability," Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), the senior Republican on the House Rules Committee, told reporters. "And I hope very much that, at the end of the day, that if we are going to have a vote, we will have a clean up-or-down vote that will allow the American people to see who is supporting this Senate bill and who is not supporting this Senate bill."
House leaders have worked for days to round up support for the legislation, but the Senate measure has drawn fierce opposition from a broad spectrum of members. Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion, liberals oppose its tax on high-cost insurance plans, and Republicans say the measure overreaches and is too expensive.
Some senior lawmakers have acknowledged in recent days that Democrats lack the votes for passage. ..."
With all due respect this is a Democratic Party issue as there are 255 Dem members and 178 GOP with with no deeming slight of hand necessary and unconstitutional issues to nag the legislation and also 100% of them are up for election in less than 8 months and 33% of the Senate in the same time frame.
Another day in the health care reform debate brings with it another battle over parliamentary procedure, and another example of the media struggling to get some basic facts right. Today, the battle is joined over deeming resolutions, the process by which House Democrats may finally overcome hurdles and worries to get the process of passing reform moving forward.
The GOP has advanced the idea that the "deem and pass" process -- also known as "The Slaughter Rule" because the idea was suggested by Representative Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) -- is tantamount to passing health care reform without voting on it. The media has largely accepted, or at least lent credence to this premise.
But does that sound right to you, Marc Ambinder?
...that's wrong. House Democrats aren't doing that.
In fact, they ARE taking an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill. They're just doing it AT THE SAME TIME as they're passing the reconciliation language, which countermands several controversial provisions.
Here's what's going on. The House is stuck having to basically pass the Senate health care bill, because the bill cannot be reconciled in conference committee. Why? Because it will be filibustered. However, House members are averse to doing anything that looks like they approve of the various side-deals that were made in the Senate -- like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." The House intends to remove those unpopular features in budget reconciliation, but if they pursue budget reconciliation on a standard legislative timeline -- where they pass the Senate bill outright first and then go back to pass a reconciliation package of fixes -- they'd still appear to be endorsing the sketchy side deals, and then the GOP would jump up and down on their heads.
Enter "deem and pass." Under this process, the House will simply skip to approving the reconciliation fixes, and "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. By doing it this way, the Democrats get the Senate bill passed while simultaneously coming out against the unpopular features of the same.
Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1910 Location: Michigan
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 09:10 pm Post subject:
Rules or are not fair it makes no difference - they are apparently flexible and oblique and not transparent LOL - the Constitution is and will continue to be the issue under Chief John Roberts - Ok - just kidding around but the point is this legislation should be clean and it is not.
There are three co equal branches of government and one has the power to void the other two.
I am perfectly willing to let the situation play itself out - it makes great political theater for November and beyond for this old political science major LOL.
So, you don't actually have a point of view about health care reform? 31,000,000 more covered people? Nothing more than fun to watch? Am I getting that right? _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:22 am Post subject: Stand up and be counted
Wow. Politicians spend a large amount of time trying not to stand up and be counted.
Nobody is going to be fooled by this. It's just going to make the Democrats seem like they are "sneeking" something through by doing something underhanded. How the Democrats fail to see is beyond me. This is a LANDMARK bill. We are not renaming a post office in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. This bill affects 17% of our economy. Did we elect members of Congress or Weasels?
Additionally, as I understand it, the parlementarian of the Senate has ruled that the Senate bill must be passed by the House and signed by the President BEFORE there can be any "reconciliation". So the bill the house members don't want to vote for without these additions will be law - and they will be blamed for it - long before the reconciliation process.
I'm not expressing any position on the merits of the bill. I just think we need members of Congress to stand up and be counted on such an important issue.
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 01:26 am Post subject: Re: Stand up and be counted
Guest888 wrote:
I just think we need members of Congress to stand up and be counted on such an important issue.
We know exactly how they are voting. Nobody is hiding a vote. This is just a way to get a bill passed. It's been used in many similar situations.
If you don't like it, vote differently next time you cast your secret ballot at the polls. _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1910 Location: Michigan
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 02:31 am Post subject:
I will bow out for now and let the echo effect continue.
I will admit that passing landmark legislation without a vote turns my stomach and makes me red in the face regardless of how I feel about the merits of the bill and I do bet this will linger in the minds of Americans and and create a bad taste and in the courts for a long time.
That's a process issue, which is exactly the only focus the opponents of the bill want you to have. I'm amazed that you did not complain when Republican Speakers of the House Newt Gingrich. used this process over 100 times, and Dennis Hastert used it over 100 times. Perhaps the Republicans and Fox News did not bring it to America's attention then as a "Constitutional problem" that was "unfair" and "hiding votes." Thus, the 200 plus "stomach turning" Republican events escaped your notice.
Looking at substance, what do you think about bringing health care for 31,000,000 people who do not have it, eliminating the prior condition rule, preventing insurance industry gouging, etc. Those are the real issues that affect human lives, not procedure.
Regarding procedure, you have been duped. See:
Quote:
WASHINGTON — When Congress battles over thorny bills, parliamentarian Alan Frumin has been known to sleep in his office – on call 24/7 as the Senate's Solomon, divining the answers.
Frumin's ability to review long-standing rules and centuries of precedent to resolve Senate questions makes the mustachioed parliamentarian something of a Washington rock star these days. As much as any elected official, Frumin, 63, holds decisive power over whether the Democrats' rewrite of the health care system survives or sinks.
"You're our new celebrity," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., recently teased the bespectacled Frumin on the Senate floor.
It's fame in true Washington fashion as Frumin, an unelected Senate staffer who won't do interviews, wields outsized influence over the fate of President Barack Obama's signature domestic issue, the health care overhaul. That's every senator's dream, without the fundraising and vote-seeking chores that mark their daily elective lives.
But the parliamentarian's job can sound like a nightmare, too, especially with the stakes as high as they are on health care.
"I foresee a very miserable period for him," said Frumin's predecessor, Bob Dove, who was fired in 2001 when Republicans, then in the majority, disliked his recommendations on a budgetary matter.
Several Republicans launched a pre-emptive effort to discredit Frumin's objectivity, a charge that Senate officials said upset him. But Frumin maintained his public silence, and the criticism was short-lived. Now, Senate Republican leaders at worst say they will have to trust him to be fair; others are more complimentary.
"People know he's fair," said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, who has known Frumin since being elected to the Senate in 1992.
So, you remain stuck on process and you won't say how you feel about the substance of the reforms?
That's exactly why the Democrats will win, and the Fox/Republicans will lose. Nobody cares about procedure, and the 31,000,000 people that get health care, the tens of thosands who wont' get screwed on pre-existing conditions, the millions who will save money, sure won't think about it again.
Let me demonstrate that nobody cares about procedure. Without looking it up, how did Medicare pass Congress? How about the Civil Rights Act? How about the Social Security Act? Veterans' Bill of Rights? The Voter's Rights Act?
People remember the laws and the way society changed. They don't give a damn how the changes made it into law. Each of these were highly contented issues at the time. Which one would you eliminate now because of process? _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Let me demonstrate that nobody cares about procedure. Without looking it up, how did Medicare pass Congress? How about the Civil Rights Act? How about the Social Security Act? Veterans' Bill of Rights? The Voter's Rights Act?
The old-age insurance system introduced in the Social Security Act was designed, at a public policy level, to be a contributory social insurance program in which contributions were made by workers to what was called the "old age reserve account," with the clear idea that this account would then be the source of monies to fund the workers' retirement. Actuarial studies were done to determine what the contribution rate would need to be in order to have sufficient reserves in the account to pay anticipated benefits. In the popular understanding of the program, the contributions established an "earned right" to the eventual benefits. President Roosevelt strenuously objected to any attempt to introduce general revenue funding into the program. His famous quote on the importance of the payroll taxes was: "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program." 2
Conceptually, the old-age insurance program was a social insurance program with an obvious connection between the taxes collected in Title VIII of the Act and the benefits paid in Title II of the Act. The taxing and spending provisions of the Act were placed in separate titles in the vain hope of convincing the courts that what was obvious was not the case--that is, so that the argument could be made that the taxing and spending provisions had nothing to do with each other. Whether such a strategy would work was highly questionable--especially following the ruling on the AAA. But as it would turn out, the Court itself would change in ways that rendered the strategy moot and the Social Security Act safe from legal challenge.
*** I kind of cheated and looked it up. (But I remembered reading about it before when you posted the link in the Acting Like a Republican thread...
I do somewhat understand Olan's concern about process though.
But we also have processes about the processes. So I guess most processes get another turn at a different level.
Last edited by jayteef on Thu Mar 18, 2010 06:42 am; edited 1 time in total
That is an interesting story Olan. I always appreciate your "different angle of the issue" posts. I am definitely not well educated in politics.
But my impression of the story is that it is about publicity. I don't understand what purpose Mr. Levin thinks it would serve to file an immediate lawsuit (aside from publicity).
This article, about the Virgina's Attorney General's plan to file a challenge, states:
Quote:
It is not clear whether Cuccinelli and other state attorneys general would have standing to sue over the federal reform and whether such suits would find favor with the federal courts.
"The attorney general is tapped into a strong sentiment -- that Congress should not be telling us what we must do," said Richmond lawyer and constitutional scholar Steve Benjamin. "The problem is that Congress has been doing just that for over 80 years. The better chance for success probably lies at the polls."
So I am not understanding what Mr. Levin's standing would be. I can see a State can say they are protecting the rights of their citizens. But I don't understand Mr. Levin's basis for suing.
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 06:26 am Post subject: Re: Slaughter Rule
Quote:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html
"Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- As Democratic leaders in Congress plot their next move on how to get the pro-abortion Senate health care bill through the House, a new strategy has developed apart from the reconciliation plan that has pro-life advocates concerned they could pass the bill without taking a vote on it.
CONTACT: STEPHANIE NIEDRINGHAUS, 202-347-9797 x224, sniedringhaus[at]networklobby.org
Catholic Sisters Support Passage of Healthcare Bill
Washington DC: NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, released the text of a letter to Congress supporting healthcare legislation from organizations and communities representing tens of thousands of Catholic Sisters. This letter (text below), which is being delivered to each Member of Congress today, comes just days after a statement in support of passing healthcare reform by Sister Carol Keehan, President and CEO of the Catholic Health Association. NETWORK strongly supports both documents and is working on all levels to promote passage in the next few days of a strong healthcare bill that will extend healthcare coverage to millions more people while eliminating unjust practices in the healthcare field. (See http://www.networklobby.org/press/3-14-10HealthcareReform.htm for NETWORK’s reaction to Catholic Health Association statement.)
This is the text of the letter being sent to all Members of Congress:
Dear Members of Congress:
We write to urge you to cast a life-affirming “yes” vote when the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590) comes to the floor of the House for a vote as early as this week. We join the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), which represents 1,200 Catholic sponsors, systems, facilities and related organizations, in saying: the time is now for health reform AND the Senate bill is a good way forward.
As the heads of major Catholic women’s religious order in the United States, we represent 59,000 Catholic Sisters in the United States who respond to needs of people in many ways. Among our other ministries we are responsible for running many of our nation’s hospital systems as well as free clinics throughout the country.
We have witnessed firsthand the impact of our national health care crisis, particularly its impact on women, children and people who are poor. We see the toll on families who have delayed seeking care due to a lack of health insurance coverage or lack of funds with which to pay high deductibles and co-pays. We have counseled and prayed with men, women and children who have been denied health care coverage by insurance companies. We have witnessed early and avoidable deaths because of delayed medical treatment.
The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments – $250 million – in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.
Congress must act. We are asking every member of our community to contact their congressional representatives this week. In this Lenten time, we have launched nationwide prayer vigils for health care reform. We are praying for those who currently lack health care. We are praying for the nearly 45,000 who will lose their lives this year if Congress fails to act. We are also praying for you and your fellow Members of Congress as you complete your work in the coming days. For us, this health care reform is a faith mandate for life and dignity of all of our people.
We urge you to vote “yes” for life by voting yes for health care reform in H.R. 3590.
Sincerely,
NETWORK—a Catholic leader in the global movement for justice and peace—educates, organizes and lobbies for economic and social transformation. Founded in 1971 by 47 Catholic sisters, NETWORK is supported by thousands of groups and individuals committed to working for social and economic justice. For more information, see www.networklobby.org .
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1215 Location: Federal Hill, Baltimore, MD
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 03:13 pm Post subject:
Jayteef asked: So I am not understanding what Mr. Levin's standing would be. I can see a State can say they are protecting the rights of their citizens. But I don't understand Mr. Levin's basis for suing.
And my answer to that (over and above the obvious one--no standing whatsoever) is that Mr. Levin would be acting in his role as a conservative commentator/advocate. Cnsnews.com is a lot like Fox News; the word "news" is used very loosely in both contexts.
Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1910 Location: Michigan
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 07:58 pm Post subject:
The “Slaughter solution,” he wrote, “may be clever, but it is not constitutional.”
“To be sure,” he continued, “each house has the power to make its own rules. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.” He cited the line-item veto as his primary precedent on the grounds that it disregarded the constitutional procedure for enacting laws.
Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin agreed that, under the precedents, “the House has to step up and take responsibility for passing the same text as appears in the Senate bill.” But, he said, “if they do that, then the precise mechanism (two bills or use of a self-executing rule) isn’t as important. One of the purposes of requiring passage of the same bill by both Houses of Congress is to prevent congressmen and senators from attempting to deny responsibility for the laws that they pass by sending the president different bills.”
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1215 Location: Federal Hill, Baltimore, MD
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 08:14 pm Post subject:
Whether the House votes on the precise language of the Senate bill or "deems it to be passed," the outcome (assuming passage of the reconciliation bill) is the same. I'd hate to put much money on this, but not even the activist Roberts Supreme Court is likely to overturn such an outcome. The SC used to defer to another branch of government's choices for conducting its business. Hopefully this one would also.
Let's see. It was used 100 times by the Republicans under Newt. Then Hastert used it over 100 times. If the Supreme Court rules that it is unconstitutional, that will leave over 200 acts of Congress undone, including the Bush tax cuts.
Bring it on. _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 01:52 am Post subject: Just vote on the bill, WEASELS!!!
As I understand it, when the Democrat stalwarts are joined by the Democrat weasels to vote on this concoction, the Senate bill will be passed without any changes. In reality, the House is simply voting on the Senate bill and voting on a seperate bill to amend it, thus providing cover (they believe) for the Weasels. Got that, everyone.
Now the seperate bill, the Weasel Act of 2010, will then be sent to the Senate. This is where the fun begins all over again. The Weasel Act eliminates the "Cornhusker Kickback" but happily leaves intact the "Louisiana Purchase". (Can you guess where I live?) The Weasel Act also makes other changes like allowing the union Cadillac plans. The Republicans can filibuster the Weasel Act but the Dems probably intend to use, you guessed it, reconciliation to pass it.
I think this Pelosi scheme is constitutional but dumb. They are essentially passing two bills at the same time. If you vote on the "deem and pass", you are voting on the Senate bill. Whether the Senate passes the Weasel Act or not, the Senate bill will become an Act of Congress to be signed on vetoed by the President. So my guess is that this procedure is constitutional. Disclaimer: This guess is not based on any legal research.
Notice how the Republicans work so hard to make this and issue of process, rather than substance. They have lost on substance, now they hope to stop health care for 31,000,000 by screaming process.
The will lose on both. As well they should, on an up or down vote, as fate would have it.
From this, it looks like the final vote for the health care reform will be a 222-203. What fun, majority rule. It's called democracy.
Now we have the Pope on our side!
Quote:
Congress, and its Catholics, should say yes to health care reform.
We do not reach this conclusion as easily as one might think, given the fact that we have supported universal health care for decades, as have the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Health Association and other official and non-official organs of the Catholic church. There are, to be sure, grave problems with the bill the House will consider in the next few days. It maintains the squirrelly system of employer-based health care coverage that impedes cost reduction. Its treatment of undocumented workers is shameful. It is unnecessarily complicated, even Byzantine, in some of its provisions. It falls short of providing true universal coverage.
Nonetheless, the choice Congress faces is between the status quo and change -- and the current bill is a profoundly preferable step in the direction of positive change. The legislation will lower costs, not only for individuals and small businesses currently burdened by rising premiums, but for the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which threaten to strangle the federal budget. It will extend health care coverage to 30 million Americans who currently lack it. Finally, a society that covers most of its citizens will be a society more likely to eventually cover everyone -- our immigrant brothers and sisters included.
Much of the focus on the bill in these last days, and not only in the Catholic world, has been on its provisions regarding abortion. All sides agreed to abide by the spirit of the Hyde Amendment, which for more than 30 years has banned federal funding of abortion. But the Hyde Amendment applies to government programs only, and trying to fit its stipulations to a private insurance marketplace is a bit like putting a potato skin on an apple. Pro-choice advocates could not understand why a government that currently subsidizes abortion coverage through the tax code should balk at subsidizing private plans that cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill establishes. They have a point. Pro-life groups understandably worry that opening the door to federal funding of abortion, even indirectly, risks further encroachments on Hyde. They have a point, too.
This being a political debate, it was bound to get nasty. And nasty it has gotten. The Catholic Health Association and its leadership is taking heat for their courageous stance in favor of the bill; the nearly 60,000 women religious who endorsed the measure yesterday [2], even as their congregations face scrutiny from Rome on other matters, should be applauded.
While we acknowledge the thoughtful tone of the statement by Cardinal Francis George [3] of Chicago, the president of the U.S. bishops' conference, some of his confreres have taken it upon themselves to impugn CHA's motives [4], the competence of its leadership, or both.
Part of the difference between the positions taken by the Catholic Health Association as well as by the leaders of the women's religious communities, and that taken by the USCCB has to do with their different roles. CHA actually knows how health care is provided at the ground level. The USCCB's inside-the-beltway analysis is focused on possible scenarios, many of them worst-case scenarios. The U.S. bishops' conference is right to worry about such things and the sisters are right to put those worries in perspective.
In any event, what is being debated is not the morality of abortion but the politics of abortion, and there is plenty of room for honest and respectful disagreement among Catholics about politics.
That said, the bishops have to be clear that some of their talking points might lead honest observers to question their competence -- or worse. In the past week or so, much has been made of the bill's provision of $7 billion dollars to community health centers. The National Right to Life Committee chimed in that this money could go to pay for abortions at clinics run by Planned Parenthood. Back to Logic 101: All Planned Parenthood clinics may be clinics, but not all health care clinics are Planned Parenthood clinics. The community health centers in question do not, never have, and have no intention of performing abortions, and they are prohibited by statute from doing so. This is a red herring and it was profoundly disappointing to see the USCCB Web site [5] give credence to it.
Bottom line: The current legislation is not "pro-abortion," and there is no, repeat no, federal funding of abortion in the bill.
Meanwhile, writing in The Washington Post last Sunday, T.R. Reid, a first-rate journalist, a Catholic, and author of "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care." argues persuasively [6] that industrialized countries that achieve universal or near-universal insurance coverage have a demonstrably lower abortion rate than we have in the United States. It should matter to those who believe in the sacredness of all human life that this legislation will not only provide health care to those who don't currently possess it, but will encourage women facing crisis pregnancies to choose life. Given the intractable nature of the abortion debate in the United States, this amounts to a pro-life victory of historic proportions.
Support independent Catholic journalism.
Support independent Catholic journalism [7]
When Social Security first passed in the 1930s, and Medicare first passed in the 1960s, the bills were insufficient to the problems the laws were designed to address. For example, in order to secure the support of Southern senators, the original Social Security bill exempted sharecroppers from its concern, as the current health care bill exempts immigrants. But, over time, the problems were remedied and both Social Security and Medicare have become essential parts of our nation's social fabric. They embody that solidarity which is the goal of Catholic social teaching.
The current health care bill, for all of its problems and all of its controversies, will further turn our society in the direction of solidarity and away from the Social Darwinism its opponents prefer.
Congress, and its Catholic members who seek to promote the common good, should vote yes.
Editorial: National Catholic Reporter backs health bill http://ncronline.org/print/17458 (last visited Thu Mar 18 2010 22:16:02 GMT-0500 (CST)) (emphasis added.)
Won't you join us? Pro life does not stop when the doctor slaps the baby on the butt. It means really caring about what happens to people and doing something about it.
But Glenn Beck, who seems to speak for God, disagrees, calling on divine process (rather than human needs or the substance of the law).
Quote:
Glenn Beck and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) expressed harmonized outrage on Beck's radio program Thursday about news that the House might vote on the health care reform package this Sunday. Voting on a Sunday, they said, was offensive and heretical.
"They intend to vote on the Sabbath, during Lent, to take away the liberty that we have right from God," King said.
"Faith has been perverted," Beck responded, then repeated. "They are going to vote for this damn thing on a Sunday, which is the Sabbath, during Lent."
Beck continued:
"Here is a group of people that have so perverted our faith and our hope and our charity, that is a -- this is an affront to God."
Here's a heads-up for Glenn Beck. The Sabbath is on Saturday. Go to Israel and check it out. It's true! _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Ah, but what would you wager on the Roberts court applying it prospectively only? I'd bet a lot.
You mean, unconstitutional in 2010 (for Dems), but not in 1994 (for Republicans)? I think we had the same constitution at both times. How would that work? _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Jayteef asked: So I am not understanding what Mr. Levin's standing would be. I can see a State can say they are protecting the rights of their citizens. But I don't understand Mr. Levin's basis for suing.
And my answer to that (over and above the obvious one--no standing whatsoever) is that Mr. Levin would be acting in his role as a conservative commentator/advocate. Cnsnews.com is a lot like Fox News; the word "news" is used very loosely in both contexts.
Interesting...I didn't know such a claim could be filed. (i.e. "I have standing to sue the government because I am a conservative news commentator and therefore an advocate...")
Well - I do understand that it could be filed - but taking up the Courts time and resources is another matter...
Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 1215 Location: Federal Hill, Baltimore, MD
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 01:05 pm Post subject:
Jayteef, just in case you don't have your tongue in your cheek, let me point out that I did indeed have my tongue in cheek. No, of course he'd have no standing. Probably not sufficiently frivolous to incur a court's wrath and/or sanctions (as the California "birther" did).
David, of course it would be a bit outrageous to apply a ruling prospectively only, but I don't think it's utterly uncommon, and I surely wouldn't put it past the Roberts court to do it.
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 08:18 pm Post subject: Republic, Democracy, Process
Quote:
What fun, majority rule. It's called democracy.
Frankly, if we were a direct democracy, this bill would fail. Fortunately for the proponents, we are a Republic.
Latest Polls
Fox News (3/17/10) 55% Against, 35% For (20 point spread)
Rasmussen (3/14/10) 53% Against, 43% For (10 point spread)
NBC News/Wall St. Journal 48% Against, 36% For (12 point spread)
Considering the Pope's current problems, I'm not sure that's a plus.
Quote:
Notice how the Republicans work so hard to make this and issue of process, rather than substance.
Frankly, I don't dislike the bill as much as I dislike the process. I think people naturally rebel against having something "jammed down their throats" which seems to be happening here. Frankly, this bill has not been explained or sold to the majority of Americans. The blame for this goes on the President and the Democrats in Congress. The Democrats have the Presidency and a majority in BOTH Houses of Congress and they cannot convince a majority of Americans that this is a good bill.
Matt Patterson of the Baltimore Sun expresses it well:
Quote:
But never mind the noisy din of the rabble; the Democrats have convinced themselves that the public is too stupid to know what is good for them, and that once the bill passes, Congress will be showered with thanks from a grateful nation that suddenly will have discovered what wonders the Democrats have bestowed on them. Has there ever been a more reckless, delusional disregard for public opinion in the history of our democracy?
I heard Congressman Ryan speak at a town hall meeting on this topic last summer (it was in our town hall, after all). He offered a plan that created over 110 new bureaucracies, did not cut the budget, and did not cover the uninsured. That was about the best plan offered by the Republicans, and it was trash.
Just saying "no,"and reciting the Fox talking points, is not good enough. These are serious issues and the Republicans failed to step up to the task. (They had from 1994 to 2006 to work on it and they did not even try).
I wanted more from the Dems. In particular, I wanted Medicaid for everybody, at a nominal cost. I did not get it. I'll take what we are getting because my children will need it. Maria has several pre-existing conditions and she will need insurance. This will make sure she has it. I'm 60. I can't afford to have a heart attack and have my insurance rescinded on the spot. I have seen too many clients suffering for lack of medical care for too long. It's time for a change and this was the best we could get. It's good enough for starters. I don't care how Congress gets it done, I'm grateful the Dems had the balls to do it. It is typical that the conservatives opposed it. They have opposed everything from national parks to social security over the last 120 years. That they rallied support for a failed status quo is no suprise, Fox News and a year of contrived tea parties (run by the RNC) is not really the vox populi. (You may ask yourself where the phrase you used "rammed down our throats" came from. Track it down, and you will see that it is not your idea at all It is an idea put into your head by Roger Ailes.)
You are right, we have a Republic. Thank goodness for that. _________________ David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
david[at]traverlaw.com
Jayteef, just in case you don't have your tongue in your cheek, let me point out that I did indeed have my tongue in cheek. No, of course he'd have no standing. Probably not sufficiently frivolous to incur a court's wrath and/or sanctions (as the California "birther" did).
I was semi-tongue in cheek and semi-literal. When I realized - Yes.. he could file a suit - it became a little more literal.
And I do have a tendency to take things very literally. I seem to vacillate between very concrete (literal) or very abstract. I don't always do middle ground very well.
I did get some insight into my tendency to take things literally one time. I was doing a "guided mediation" where the tape has you see yourself out the forest, and see all the trees, feel the sun, hear the birds, etc. etc. etc. - and right about the time I was really relaxed the tape said "Now see AHEAD on your path."
My mind took that very literally (but seemed to have heard "See a HEAD on your path..."
ACK!!!!
I was smart enough to immediately realize I took it differently than the tape meant it.... but it was still quite a jolt to have body parts appear in my "sacred place" I had just created...
So yes, my mind does have a tendency to take things very literally.
No Slaughter rule, no secret votes, just a straight up or down vote. Now it's law.
Everything we heard from the right about "process" was a lie.
Go figure.
Quote:
The White House has announced that President Obama will sign the health care reform bill on Tuesday at Northern Virginia Community College.
The final, fixed legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday evening.
In addition to an overhaul of the health care system, the bill contains education provisions that help students with loan payments.
"The education related initiatives funded by the law are fully paid for by ending the government subsidies currently given to banks and other financial institutions that make guaranteed federal student loans," the White House said in a statement.
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Traverlaw, Traver Law, Traver Law Offices, S.C., Traver & Traver, S.C.,
Traverlaw.com, SSAConnect,
Attorneys for the disabled and disadvantaged in all areas of Social Security
disability law, http://traverlaw.com,
http://ssaconnect.com, Connect, SSA Connect, Think Bigger,
Social Security Advice Connect, Social Security Disability Advice Connect,
"Social Security Disability Advocacy, Debate, and Professional News,"
the yellow and orange swoosh image, and the square favicon.ico image,
are trademarks and service marks of Attorney David F. Traver.
For information the about use of our copyrighted and trademarked material please call
262-594-2096.
CONNECT
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
