But after Snowe did just that with Baucus and then Reid immediately stabbed her in the back, who in the GOP would want to do anything besides just kill it?

And now the egos of the House progressives socialists to move first has painted this thing into a corner. 25% of the Ds join all the Rs in passing Stupak, and Waxman all but says “Screw all 240 of you - I’ll take it out later and you can’t do a damn thing about it.”

Not that there should have been any doubt about it to begin with, but certainly no R can trust what will come out of committee, so do they want to go through the motions and mess with Reid over something they know that not a single R will support in the end, or do they just say screw it and start putting up the blockades now?

Selected paragraphs from

http://www.learntheconstitution.com/social-welfare.html

[...]

Within a short time the Americans, as a people, were on the way top becoming the most prosperous and best-educated nation in the world. The key was using the government to protect equal rights, not to provide equal things. Samuel Adams said the ideas of a welfare state were made unconstitutional by the Founders:
“The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of production and distribution) are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”

[...]

Franklin wrote a whole essay on the subject and told one of his friends: “I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor (in England ) is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and, I hope, shall reform it.”

[...]

Franklin wrote: “To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? When ever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence , and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.”

[...]

The U. S. Constitution states in Article I, section 8: The people of the states empower the Congress to expend money (for the enumerated purposes listed in Article I, section 8), provided it is done in a way that benefits the general welfare of the whole people. Thomas Jefferson explained that this clause was not a grant of power to “spend” for the general welfare of the people, but was intended to “limit the power of taxation” to matters which provided for the welfare of “the Union ” or the welfare of the whole nation. In other words, federal taxes could not be levied for states, countries, cities, or special interest groups. (Making of America p 387)

While it doesn’t flow as nicely as “a thousand pages of bad ideas” the truth is it is two thousand pages of bad ideas. There are over 7000 sections of regulations and provisions; all bad.

For the gentleman who mentions the general welfare clause, Congress is using that clause to try to pass the monstrosity. I’ve yet to hear one Congressman or Senator ask those supporting the legislation: How can they argue general welfare when there are sections that detract greatly from the general welfare of many to supplement the general welfare of a few?

It is about freedom even at its most basic level and beyond. If we cannot personally fulfill the demands of this legislation we go to jail. For some that will be a death sentence and the ludicrousness of it escapes those who are demanding such of its citizenry.

Our choices will be what the government decides they are and our lives will be defined by nothing more than numbers and income (or lack of a sufficient quantity of it) as the determinant of our value in society.

The general welfare clause is limited to the extent of the rest of Article 1 - Section 8 of the Constitution. If they want to impose universal health care it would require an amendment to the constitution, the passage of which is unlikely.

Is there any reason that SCOTUS can’t rule on a proposed law?

holds a potential danger which we may later regret. Currently the insurance industry is regulated by the individual states. As much as I like unfettered competition, allowing insurance companies to compete on the national level at this point in time opens the door for the Socialist-Democrats to (mis)use the interstate commerce clause to simplify their takeover.

You are right that individual freedom is the central issue, but this touches upon states rights as well. Interstate competition is an issue best left for when the lefties are out of power.

Anyone who is really interested in understanding the position of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) on this legislation would be well advised to study materials on the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org, rather than relying on imaginary excursions such as that provided above.

A good starting point would be the letter NRLC sent to the House prior to the vote on passage of H.R. 3962, posted here (with special attention to the third paragraph): http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetterHR3962passage.html

Had it not been for the intense activity of NRLC on the concrete threats posed by Obama-style “health care reform” to pro-life interests — which were launched in January — the Obama-backed bill would have passed the House much sooner, and by a larger margin. NRLC’s opposition to the bills advanced in two Senate committees, based on multiple offensive provisions on both abortion policy and rationing issues, has been and remains one of the chief impediments to the progress of the Obama-backed legislation in the Senate as well. Since we’re on the front lines here, it would be appreciated if you’d raise the sights on your cannon a few notches higher and drop your shells on the proper targets.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
legfederal // at // aol-dot-com
202-626-8820

Anyone who is really interested in understanding the position of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) on this legislation would be well advised to study materials on the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org, rather than relying on imaginary excursions such as that provided above.

A good starting point would be the letter NRLC sent to the House prior to the vote on passage of H.R. 3962, posted here (with special attention to the third paragraph): http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetterHR3962passage.html

Had it not been for the intense activity of NRLC on the concrete threats posed by Obama-style “health care reform” to pro-life interests — which were launched in January — the Obama-backed bill would have passed the House much sooner, and by a larger margin. NRLC’s opposition to the bills advanced in two Senate committees, based on multiple offensive provisions on both abortion policy and rationing issues, has been and remains one of the chief impediments to the progress of the Obama-backed legislation in the Senate as well. Since we’re on the front lines here, it would be appreciated if you’d raise the sights on your cannon a few notches higher and drop your shells on the proper targets.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
legfederal // at // aol-dot-com
202-626-8820

Erick, you are so right. The issue politics, no matter how heartfelt, must be set aside.

This bill has nothing to do with “health care reform” or with “health insurance reform” — both of those two separate issues could be resolved with respective two or three-page bills, and this monstrous repugnancy to the Constitution doesn’t address any of the facets that need “reform.”

Good article, thank you.

Shared with my FB peeps.

We cannot allow the GOP to be seduced by a single issue into colluding in the wholesale theft of the liberty of generations of future Americans.

I agree that Liberty and Freedom are the issue.

I also think the Democrats (though not them alone) couldn’t care less about such things… they have a legacy to build.

If we had leaders with common sense, one would think this portion of V Amendment woudl prohibit the Govt from being able to tax someone for the purpose of giving it to other people …

“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Opposition to the healthcare bill must be based on the right to exercise free will, a basic tenent of our Constitution. To have anyone else tell us how to live, outside our having an impact on someone else, is a violation of our right to free will. It is amazing how that argument has lost its way over the generations. Now people like Pelosi and Leahy actually scoff at the thought we have a choice on how we live beyond what they chose for us.

Amazing.

This continuous assault on our basic freedoms by those who would rule us can only end one way. The elites in our nation don’t realize we aren’t Europeans or Brits or Chinese. Like I said before, arrogance leads to willful blindness. We have a long history of telling leaders where to go. Sometimes at the ballot box, sometimes by other means. Sadly, it is inevitable. The elites hope to tie us up with their control over our jobs, our lives, our health and our children’s education, playing on the fears and hoping that the sheep in us will force compliance. That only lasts for so long. Sooner or later, their end will come. How that happens will be not up to them, but up to us. It is the nature of humans and of nations. Just because we are Americans doesn’t mean our nation is immune to the same threats, actions and outcomes that are scattered across history. We only think that because we’ve been blessed for so long. But, as I have said many times before, all things come to an end, even here.

this isn’t an abortion bill, it is a healtcare bill. Other than a handful of Democrats who claim to be pro-life, and they may be, when have any Democrats ever had pro-life as one of their major issues? They are Democrats first. To use the Stupak amendment, in order to get it on the floor, they have exaggerated one single issue, all to the Republicans detriment. All Republicans in Wasgington must stand against the entire legislation, and, stop getting stuck on single pieces of the entire package.

The majority of Americans no longer have the ability to separate liberty and freedom from compassion. Just as they believe the Supreme Court is to tell us “what is right”, they believe a perception of “good” should overrule any infringement on freedom and liberty.

That’s why the liberals will always frame their attack upon freedom in a blanket of compassion. Due to the ignorance of the American people and the successful liberal indoctrination through the public schools, the media and entertainment, freedom will never take precedent over what is perceived to be good or compassionate (in the liberal view, of course).

Can this ever be turned around? We will likely see in the upcoming elections. But I doubt it.

I respectfully disagree with Erick. Let me remind you where we stand. In the House, we have 177 seats compared to their 258. In the Senate we hold 40 seats compared to their filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. This fights has been, is, and will continue to be an uphill battle. In such a situation we cannot afford to ignore any possible advantage. Also, because there is such a strong chance that this will get through anyway despite our best efforts, we cannot afford to play political games with our principles, especially the principle of projecting life.

As such, we should be attacking this bill on any and all fronts. We should attack it on abortion, attack it on the death panels, attack it on freedom, attack it on bureaucracy, and attack it as a typical liberal tax and spend bill which will hurt the economy and explode the debt & deficit. Leave no stone unturned. Turn up the heat anyway we can on any of the Democrats who appear weak. All of these are our tactics.

Our strategy is to delay as much as possible to get it as close as possible to the elections of 2010. The closer to those elections, the less likely this bill will pass. To be clear, this is a strategy of desperation - remember the congressional control numbers as mentioned above. However it is the only strategy that has any hope. Even the Democrats know this which is why Pelosi pushed for a House vote ASAP. I think if it would have gone another month, it would not have passed the House. The reason this is a hopeful strategy is because the voting public is against it by a slim but concrete majority.

We need to keep the public on our side. It is the only influence we have on the Democrats. The public is not monolithic in their opposition. Their opposition covers the spectrum of reasons and so we need to keep all of those components on our side. This is tight and so we cannot afford to give up on anything.

I wish we could focus on the freedom aspect and gain enough support simply from that, but I am afraid that our civic education and knowledge have been eroded far too much.

I really think you hit the nail on the head with your article. I understand the issue of abortion is important for many members of our coalition, and I respect that, but right now, the issue on American’s mind is our country’s creep to socialism. We can’t use this fight to get our hobby horse and score points for different coalitions. It needs to be all about defeating this.

And with all due respect, I think the issue of subsidized abortion is a minor front in the pro-life movement, one that could have been given a temporary pass for a far greater goal of saving this nation. The main issue has always been the legality of abortion in the first place, not how they’re paid for, and a person is naive to think that any type of universal health care won’t eventually include some sort of public funding for abortion. It’s only a mater of time no matter how many temporary concessions you get from Nancy Pelosi. The Democrats will offer you anything to get this passed, but you’re making a deal with the devil.

I really think had the grassroots given “permission” to House members to vote down Stupak in order to defeat this bill, the Republicans would have followed Shadegg’s strategy and voted present, and the bill would have been voted down.

To try and make this health care bill “better” if it passes is to already admit defeat.

I think it is a mistake to discount any one reason to oppose the health care bill. We need a broad coalition of opposition.

I am one who opposes the bill based upon freedom, but I am afraid that there are many Americans out there who would be more than happy to trade freedom for security. It is a common temptation. However, I believe that we can dissuade them.

For the Americans who discount freedom it is important to raise the issue of trust. We must show that the bill in fact does not offer security. It raises taxes, retards economic growth, costs jobs, and opens the door to the rationing of health care. Destroying the illusion of security will lead more Americans to hold on to their freedom even if they are willing to trade it in principle.

I am glad that Stupak passed. It reflects the pro-life consensus in this country. I am glad that it has stirred up opposition on the left. A more vocal abortion debate should be tied to the issue of trust.

We need to show that if health care passes, then abortion and euthenasia will be used for cost control. Do we trust the government to stop there? If so, is this government plan worth sacrificing freedom for?

Hey Erick
I took the liberty of borrowing some of your thoughts expressed here in emails to both my (GOP) Senators. I know one is flat out against anything in the bill. The other probably is, but may have an “improvement” mindset. I’ve been told in response letters from both that they oppose the Baucus bill, but — “stuff” happens and things can change. No question Dirty Harry and his partners-in-socialism will lay on every underhanded manuever they can think of to ram this thing through. Fact is, I think Reid’s claim that there may not be a vote before the end of the year is a set-up to give himself wiggle room. He’s simply trying to take some of the pressure off himself and Senate Democrats.

There is an interesting article in the Weekly Standard Blog titled:Killing the Stupak Amendment Wouldn’t Have Killed the Bill See:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/killing_the_stupak_amendment_w_1.asp?msource=c4alerts

There is no possibility of compromise even on removing abortion funding alone. There is absolutely NOTHING short of the Stupak Amendment that could stop government abortion funding. The NRLC has emphasized this repeatedly by pointing out the sham of “compromises” proposed by the likes of Capps, Baucus, and Ellsworth.

The rabidly pro-abortion liberals are promising to vote against the bill if Stupak Amendment language is included. Obama even insists on federal abortion funding. The Democrats with a mostly pro-life record have not sounded quite as committed to opposing a final bill that funds abortion, but some like Ben Nelson of Nebraska have promised to do so. Either way, some Democrats will have to violate their promise for the bill to pass. None will have “cover” because the few people who care about it will know the whole truth.

Because no compromise is possible the way this “reform” is structured, reducing the concern exclusively to abortion would, if pro-life Democrats were being honest, defeat the bill.

The bottom line that we should all acknowledge is that there is no way a bill that does not include government funding of abortions will pass. That is for certain.

Contrary to what I’ve read on here, it is in Republicans’ best interest to support any amendment that legitimately blocks abortion funding as such an amendment is more likely to reduce than to increase chances of final passage.