Tag Archives: Abortion

Grateful That My Name Isn’t Babs: Mikulski & Boxer The Epitome of “Huh?”

Babs Mikulski and Babs Boxer, two Democrat females from Maryland and California respectively have said some interesting things this past week, which should make everyone go “Huh?”

Barbara Boxer earlier this week equated the amendment to continue the ban of federal funded abortions to denying men Viagra.  Now, I’m not quite sure if it is just me, but I don’t really see how these two are comparable.  On the one hand you have an actual disorder; erectile dysfunction, on the other, you have pregnancy, which I don’t find to be a disorder.  (Spare me mother’s health, rape/incest – those are already covered). 

Barbara Mikulski created an abortion amendment that would call abortion preventative care, placing it in the Senate Health Care bill, which would invariably dump the federal funding ban on abortion.

As the Senate prepares for a possible vote today on the Mikulski amendment to the Senate version of the government-run health care bill, it is drawing more opposition. Americans United for Life joins the National Right to Life Committee in condemning the amendment for calling abortion preventative health care.

As LifeNews.com reported yesterday, NRLC condemned the Mikulski amendment because it would essentially define abortion as preventative care and could persuade private insurance plans to define abortion as such and provide coverage of it.

AUL staff attorney Mary Harned has released her own analysis of the amendment and concurs with NRLC that it presents problems.

“The Mikulski amendment, in pertinent part, requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance to provide coverage for and not impose cost sharing requirements on ‘preventative care’ for women ‘as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA),'” she explained.

I would like to ask both Babs’ what they deem preventative care.  I would assume that prevention starts before an individual gets pregnant, i.e. birth control and sex, however, that may just be my naiveté.  Abortion is legal, I’m not sure why it needs to be included in an insurance plan, especially if Americans don’t want to pay for it or agree with it based on moral and religious grounds.  How is a mandatory inclusion of abortions in a government health care system constitutional?  It would seem that forcing all citizens onto a plan that covers abortions would violate first amendment rights for those who are opposed based on religious beliefs. 

To make matters even worse, Mikulski recently stated that health care is a female issue.  Is this just another Democrat showing her true intolerant and segregated beliefs? Mikulski is my Senator, so I have many opinions (not good) about how she operates and what she stands for.  Health care is a human issue, not an individual group’s issue – but here we go again: liberals grouping people by class, race, gender and religion… Stop the insanity.

Leave a comment

Filed under Boxer, Democrats, Health Care, Progressivism

No More Wire Hangers: Berkeley City Council Unhinged Over Anti-Abortion Amendment

It’s time to cue Joan Crawford “No more wire hangers,” or better yet: “Tina, bring me the axe!” Maybe it’s about time to at least bring down the hammer on the city of Berkeley.  The city shows how well government can waste taxpayer money by sending wire hangers to 20 politicians who believe in the sanctity of life, or whom believe that the long-standing ban of federally funded abortions should be retained. 

The San Fran Gate reports:

The city of Berkeley mailed coat hangers to 20 members of Congress on Wednesday in protest of the anti-abortion amendment in the House version of the federal health care bill.

The City Council approved the action 7-1 on Tuesday night. Councilman Gordon Wozniak dissented; Mayor Tom Bates was absent.

Metal coat hangers were mailed with a protest letter to members of the House of Representatives who voted in favor of the amendment but have a history of supporting abortion rights.

The amendment would ban coverage of abortion for those who would receive government-run health insurance. It would also forbid people from choosing a private plan that covers abortion if they receive federal subsidies to pay for the insurance.

I think we should invite her to the city council meetings in the future:

Photobucket

What should we send Berkeley in return? Check out Michelle Malkin’s blog for some great ideas!

Leave a comment

Filed under Health Care, ObamaCare