3 - You be the judge
Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, appears likely to be confirmed, with a Judiciary Committee vote next week and a Senate vote probable before the August recess. While the nominee tried to dance around questions about her statements, such as the "wise Latina" comment, that she said was a poorly expressed choice of words, her judicial philosophy is thought to be consistent with the left wing of the Supreme Court. Her vagueness was apparent on issues such as abortion and even gay marriage, but her comments on consideration of the "health of the mother" with respect to so-called reproductive choice is consistent with the type of language that you might hear from pro-abortion advocates, who could seemingly always find a health exception when a woman's right to choose is at stake.
More on Sotomayor and abortion on LifeNews.com. Plus, this story...
2 - Healthy debate or haughty disdain?
The rush to reform America's health care system kicked into overdrive this week, while the eyes of the nation were watching the political theater known as the Sotomayor hearings. A House and a Senate committee voted on their versions of health care reform legislation, and the President was urging a quick passage of this major linchpin in his agenda.
Pro-life groups and lawmakers were concerned about the mandated funding for abortion in drafts of the health care legislation, as reported by CitizenLink. Government involvement will eventually lead to government control, and with limited resources, rationing is a strong possibility. This could take its toll on the elderly, and result in some moral and ethical situations concerning end-of-life issues. Eagle Forum of Alabama had these observations in a recent e-mail about proposed health care legislation:
Will Ration Health Care according to Obama drafter: Zeke Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel's brother, and key architect of the Obama health plan, argues for the "just allocation of health resources" in a way that ensures future generations are of the best mental and physical health. He has developed the "complete lives system" (CLS), which discriminates against the elderly. Emanuel says, "the complete lives system discriminates against older people...Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
Will Raise Taxes: Democrats have proposed to pay for their trillion-dollar health plan by imposing a 5.4% surtax on everyone earning more than $280,000 a year - a particularly harsh blow to small business owners. Next year 39 states would have a top individual tax rate of over 50%. Alabama's top tax rate would be a mere 49.76%!
Will Destroy Quality: Look at Canada, the U.K. or any other country with nationalized health care to see that their quality of care is inferior to what we enjoy in the U.S. This bill will result in longer wait times to see a doctor, more limits on service, and fewer choices for patients. People from all over the world come to our country to take advantage of our quality health care; why would we want to lower our standards to the level of care they could get at home?
Marches Toward Socialism: This plan will result in government takeover of the health care system. Health spending represents a whopping 17% of total GDP. Private plans could not be sold or changed (p.1018) . Neither could they could compete with government-subsidized premiums 30 - 40% cheaper. Employers will pay the 8% government penalty rather than provide insurance.
There is still time to oppose this legislation, that poses a threat to the stability of families and the preservation of life. With increased taxation, even on the so-called rich, comes a greater burden to consumers in general, who will bear the brunt of increased prices in order to cover the costs of operation as a result of small business owners having to pay higher prices and having to provide health insurance to their employees or risk paying a fine.
1 - A matter of hate?
Since the Senate couldn't seem to muster an up- or down- vote on hate crimes, Majority Leader Harry Reid attached it to a defense spending bill as an amendment, a common tactic for passing legislation that could be unpopular with the public. So, lawmakers concerned about this bill's protection for homosexuality and a host of other deviant sexual behaviors and lack of protection for pastors and others who could be prosecuted simply for speaking out consistent with the Biblical perspective on homosexuality, now face a challenge of voting against funding our troops in order to kill this threatening legislation. Liberty Counsel has some excellent analysis of the legislative process. Those who commit crimes based on hate already face punishment through our legal and penal system, so creating another class of criminal act based on thought or motive is unnecessary. This bill has been characterized as just another opportunity to provide protection and Federal endorsement of the gay lifestyle.
Honorable Mention:
New Survey: 1 in 3 scientists believe in God
Bill to stop reinstatement of Fairness Doctrine turned back
No comments:
Post a Comment