Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Chris Matthews: Obama Double-Crosses Pope; Abortion Coverage Could Jeopardize Health Reform [UPDATED]

Jill Stanek reports on Obama-sycophant-in-chief Chrissy Matthews' distress that the Democrat effort to include abortion coverage could sink the President's health-care reform plan:
Matthews: Well, I think he did, I think he will, but he's gonna deal with this thing. What do you think, Roger, because this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Because when I see it coming, it came from nowhere. I started reading about it this weekend in the Weekly Standard, and I watched [Republican Sen. Orrin] Hatch [UT] last night on this show stating that he pushed to ban it. The law [Hyde Amendment] says, it has said since the 70s, under a Democratic Congress, no federal money pays for abortions. It has been the law of the land, and now they're trying to change it...

... By the way, the night he tells the Pope, he goes over to see the Pope and says they're going to reduce the number of abortions, and then that same week he pushes to subsidize abortion? You can't do that!

[See Jill's blog for more]
My Comments:
Hey, Chrissy! What's happened to the "tingle"?

And now for some more serious questions: I'd like to ask those faithful Catholics who support a government-provided health care program whether inclusion of abortion coverage is a deal breaker for them. If you had to choose between a program that includes federally funded abortion coverage and scuttling the whole thing (assuming those were the only politically feasible alternatives), which would you choose?

I assume, of course, that you'd prefer a third alternative: a health care progam without abortion coverage. If so, then why haven't we heard more outrage from those Catholics who have been most vocal about their preference for government-provided coverage over the fact that the Democrat leadership is willing to jeopardize support for health-care reform by insisting on federally funded abortion coverage?

Seems that Michael Sean Winters had already answered the questions I raise above: "Pro-Life Kudos to Michael Sean Winters". Anyone else want to join him?

Labels: , , , , ,


At 7/16/2009 6:57 AM, Blogger Denise said...

This health care reform bill has nothing to do with health care. It is about economic efficiency with no ethics attached. Abortion is cheaper than births. Euthanasia is cheaper than the ICU. I just finished writing a paper on age-based rationing of health care. There are people advising the president to basically put people out to pasture at age 65. They have had their "fair innings" of life. Keep them comfortable, but no more therapeutic interventions.


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger