Atom Feed (xml)Source
Yesterday, I said the president would not mention abortion in his speech. I was wrong about that. But I was right to say, “The rational thing to do would be to drop abortion from the health care bills and support conscience rights for health care workers.” Obama did nothing of the sort. Indeed, his one sentence denial that his health care proposals would result in federal funding of abortion is simply not true.
Even the New York Times, which issued a strong editorial endorsing his speech, said in a news analysis that his claim that there is no federal funding for abortion “is not so clear-cut.” In practice, the Times said, “the public and private money would all go into the same pot, and the source of money for any single procedure is largely a technicality.”
More pointedly, if there is no federal funding for abortion in these plans, then why have there been several attempts to bar such funding? Tell that to Rep. Bart Stupak, Rep. Joe Pitts, Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Sam Johnson, Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Mike Enzi. Why would they seek to ban something that doesn’t exist? Just as revealing, why did Obama’s friends defeat every one of these amendments?
President Obama is playing a shell game. He defended the public option plan last night, and under that plan, the person in charge of deciding whether abortion coverage will be mandated is his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. This is the same woman who befriended George Tiller, the infamous abortionist who specialized in killing babies 80-percent born. Is there anyone who doubts what her decision will be? If President Bush appointed a secretary of education who was pro-school vouchers, and an education plan allowed the secretary to decide whether to fund them, would anyone conclude that federal dollars for vouchers were not in the plan?
Being wrong is one thing. Being deceitful is quite another.
I'm Just Finished
1 month ago
