That’s a quote from the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner. From The New York Times:
In a speech to the Right to Life Committee in June, Mr. Boehner explained the roots of his beliefs.
“I grew up in a small house in Cincinnati with a big family, 11 brothers and sisters,” Mr. Boehner said. “My parents sent all 12 of us to Catholic schools.” At those schools, he said, “we learned about deeper values, and respect for life was at the top of that list.”
Except as far as I can tell, the only form of life that Boeher holds sacred is fetuses. He seemingly has no objection to lives being lost during pointless wars, he voted against stem cell research which would help people with deadly diseases, and I would be very surprised if he doesn’t support capital punishment. Boehner apparently doesn’t value women’s lives very much, since he voted against equal pay for women.
Because of his deep “respect for life,” Boehner strongly supports the goals of the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), whose committee “has jurisdiction over private health insurance, Medicaid and much of Medicare, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health,”
Pitts primary goal is to repeal Obama’s health care reform law.
Short of that goal, Mr. Pitts said he was determined to ban federal subsidy payments to any health insurance plans that include coverage of abortion — a benefit now offered by many private health plans.
Under the new law, the federal government is expected to spend more than $450 billion in subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy insurance from 2014 to 2019.
When Congress was writing the law, Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, led efforts to restrict the use of federal money for insurance plans covering abortion. Mr. Pitts, though less well known, was the chief Republican co-author of the “Stupak amendment.”
From his powerful new perch, Mr. Pitts said he would try again to impose those restrictions.
“The new health care law is riddled with loopholes that allow taxpayer subsidies for coverage that includes abortion,” Mr. Pitts said.
In its current form, the Obama health care law allows health plans to cover abortions, but no federal money can be used to pay for them. To make sure not a single cent of taxpayer money gets used in that way, patients must write two separate checks–one for health coverage and one completely out-of-pocket for abortion coverage. Furthermore, insurance companies have to keep the money in separate back accounts! In addition President Obama, the great progressive, issued an executive order to make it absolutely clear that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions.
But none of that was good enough for Joe Pitts. He wants to make sure that no plan that makes abortion coverage available can receive subsidies under the new law. In effect this would ban abortion, since the few doctors who still perform the procedure aren’t likely to keep doing so if they aren’t covered by insurance. Frankly, I think the current rules will probably lead to this result, but Joe Pitts and John Boehner want to make absolutely sure. Because they care so very deeply about human life.
God, I’m so sick of Republicans. If only we could have gotten a Democrat into the White House in 2008, maybe Democrats would still control Congress.
Some key retirements today. As expected, Obama will get a chance to appoint the next judge to SCOTUS. Glenn Greenwald profile’s one possible appointment here at Salon, Elena Kagan.
The danger that we won’t have such a status-quo-maintaining selection is three-fold: (1) Kagan, from her time at Harvard, is renowned for accommodating and incorporating conservative views, the kind of “post-ideological” attribute Obama finds so attractive; (2) for both political and substantive reasons, the Obama White House tends to avoid (with a few exceptions) any appointees to vital posts who are viewed as “liberal” or friendly to the Left; the temptation to avoid that kind of nominee heading into the 2010 midterm elections will be substantial (indeed, The New York Times‘ Peter Baker wrote last month of the candidates he said would be favored by the Left: “insiders doubt Mr. Obama would pick any of them now“); and (3) Kagan has already proven herself to be a steadfast Obama loyalist with her work as his Solicitor General, and the desire to have on the Court someone who has demonstrated fealty to Obama’s broad claims of executive authority is likely to be great.
Matthew Ygleisas has some Outside the Box suggestions for Potus.
What motivated Bart Stupak to retire? via Marc Ambinder.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) plans to announce his retirement today, Democrats briefed on his decision said. Stupak, the leader of a pro-life faction within his party, had received death threats and was under intense political pressure after he agreed to support the Democratic health care reform legislation even though pro-life groups insisted that it would allow federal funds to be used for abortion.
Do you suppose we could encourage Ben Nelson of Nebraska to consider announcing his retirement next? I’d also like to see Bobby Jindal retire but no such luck.
Nate Silver takes about the chances of a Red Christmas here.
The point is not necessarily that these are the most likely scenarios — we certainly ought not to formulate a judgment based on Rasmussen polls alone, as the jury is still out on whether the substantial house effect they’ve displayed this cycle is a feature or a bug. But these sorts of scenarios are frankly on the table. If Democrats were to lose 50, 60, 70 or even more House seats, it would not totally shock me. Nor would it shock me if they merely lost 15, or 20. But their downside case could be very far down.