Over the last month or so, there have been quite a few letters and editorials in the newspaper showing a real fear of what our President, and the Democrats in Congress have done for our country, and what they might do. While I can understand and appreciate the desire to patriotically question those in power, it seems that many of the letters state things that are either untrue or missing key details.

Much of the rhetoric has obviously centered around the recently passed Health Care Law. A number of times, letter writers have told readers that the law scrapped the Hyde Amendment and that your tax dollars will fund abortions. Surely, I could see how that would infuriate those on the right... If it were true. As a matter of fact, President Obama issued an executive order that protects the Hyde Amendment far more than any actions from Republicans in the White House or Congress have done. I would expect those on the right to celebrate their accomplishment, so to speak, but it's more persuasive to mislead, I guess.

Another common assertion is that the Health Care Law funds the hiring of 16,500 new IRS agents to make sure that taxpayers comply with the wishes of "Big Government". While it is likely that a number of IRS agents will be hired to combat fraud, it is no where near that number created by Republicans opposed to the bill at that time. That number was based on assumptions of how money allocated to the IRS would be spent. In fact, much of the money for the IRS is actually intended to give tax credits to families and businesses to purchase insurance coverage.

The issue of free markets being the better solution to health care affordability issues misses the point as well. Supply and demand has made health care less affordable. Considering that everybody will need access to medical care at some point, it makes sense that everyone has access to insurance. Compassionate conservatives prefer a more Darwinian approach, which is pretty funny on a number of levels when you think about it.

Republicans, of course, had the opportunity to propose other solutions regarding affordability. All that was offered was anger. Given the desire to reach some sort of bi-partisanship, Democrats put together a bill that was for the most part drawn from 15 year old Republican proposals. They erroneously thought that the GOP would at least support their own ideas. Not when their own reelection in the era of Tea Parties is more important.

I'm not sure if the information in the recent letters is intentionally misleading, or if those writing just have unreliable sources, but it's clear to me that the intent of the information is to ensure that Conservatives get elected to as many positions as possible this year. I suppose that this is one of those things where the end is supposed to justify the means, but doesn't really help people make good voting decisions.

This year could be very important in shaping the bodies that affect our lives. Getting good information from reliable sources is critical to good decision making. Using emotion drvien "news sources" meant for entertainment purposes only as your primary sources of information will skew your view to the point of losing your credibility.

Steven Puvogel

Much of the rhetoric has obviously centered around the recently passed Health Care Law. A number of times, letter writers have told readers that the law scrapped the Hyde Amendment and that your tax dollars will fund abortions. Surely, I could see how that would infuriate those on the right... If it were true. As a matter of fact, President Obama issued an executive order that protects the Hyde Amendment far more than any actions from Republicans in the White House or Congress have done. I would expect those on the right to celebrate their accomplishment, so to speak, but it's more persuasive to mislead, I guess.

I hope you are not intentionally misleading.
Dig a little deeper.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) -- one of about a dozen antiabortion-rights lawmakers who attended the executive order signing -- said that several past presidents have used executive orders to reaffirm legislation. Rahall said two of the groups that are criticizing Obama's order -- USCCB and NRLC -- endorsed President George W. Bush's June 2007 executive order on embryonic stem-cell legislation. "It's the same groups criticizing this executive order as being worthless that endorsed executive orders under [Bush]," Rahall said (Bendery, Roll Call, 3/24).

Could be. Although there are a number of longer letters being printed as well. I guess I might start writing a few more of the "short" ones.

Would you post a copy? O a link, if there is one? I'm not able find it the DW website.

Plus, it's the first post of the thread.

Still waiting on Iky, though...

President Obama issued an executive order that protects the Hyde Amendment far more than any actions from Republicans in the White House or Congress have done.

Plus, some Republicans can look good for getting something passed that effectively doesn't do anything but clarify what's already been said.

Plus, some Republicans can look good for getting something passed that effectively doesn't do anything but clarify what's already been said.

Could the money be used for abortions? It doesn't seem likely based on the comments from the White House, Sebelius, the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and the umbrella organization for community health centers.

But neither can we say definitively that the scenario laid out by the Lipinski and the National Right to Life Committee could not happen.

If you focus on the technical possibilities -- which is an entirely legitimate thing to do -- who can say whether a court might rule that without a specific prohibition, abortions could be permitted? [Courts have already set precedence ruling just that way, not just allowing but compelling abortion funding.]

You can't fault organizations like the National Right to Life Committee for raising concerns about potential loopholes, even if they seem unlikely. And perhaps language will have to be added to remove any doubt. A White House official saying the president would work with Congress to draft language to make clear that federal funds for community health centers should not be used to fund abortions certainly sounds like an acknowledgement that there is at least room for interpretation.

Which does nothing to change the fact that people receiving government subsidies for healthcare will be able to buy a policy on the exchange covering elective birth-control abortion.

After all, you are probably spending my tax dollars on something I have a moral problem with.

Possibly, but not probably.

Don't be ridiculous.
Of course the minister pays taxes on his income. He also owns his own Hoquiam home, so he pays property taxes, too.

As I said before, I'd be happy to calculate any portion of Lumberjack's paid taxes that might come my way, and keep that account separate from anything Lumberjack considered objectionable.

Your whole point is that the woman might (because her health insurance tax credits allowed her to retain some of her wages and tips) purchase insurance on the exchange... with those wages and tips.

Some people earn incomes which are paid solely from taxpayer dollars.

And that's fine. But not everyone is employed in a field earning "tips." Some people earn incomes which are paid solely from taxpayer dollars.

If there were no chance that the bill allowed for any taxpayer money to be used for abortion services, there would be absolutely no reason for the "opt out" clause.

1. State tax revenue can and does fund abortion services in some states, including Washington. That doesn't change anything in relation to the Hyde Amendment. I should have included the word "federal".

Your reference on PolitiFact shows that if you have the logical capacity of a Glenn Beck, you could reach that conclusion. Therefore, barely true. If you read it with sincerity, however, you will find the article to support my viewpoint.

Does the PPACA scrap the Hyde Amendment? No. By the article you posted, it appears to expand it.

Your reference on PolitiFact shows that if you have the logical capacity of a Glenn Beck, you could reach that conclusion. Therefore, barely true. If you read it with sincerity, however, you will find the article to support my viewpoint.

Can YOU say definitively that it could not happen?

How about reading it honestly?

"Could the money be used for abortions? It doesn't seem likely based on the comments from the White House, Sebelius, the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and the umbrella organization for community health centers.

But neither can we say definitively that the scenario laid out by the Lipinski and the National Right to Life Committee could not happen."

Can YOU say definitively that it could not happen?

Plus, I've already shown you definitively where tax dollars are used to fund abortions. If you want to be dishonest about it, continue your blanket rhetoric.

Question: Does the recently passed health care legislation provide that any federal funds may be used to pay for abortions?

No.

......that is until the nutbars take over. And that may not be far away.

What's with that anyway? "Office of Faith Based Initiatives"? You've got to be kidding me. Has Obama gotten rid of that garbage yet? Are my federal tax dollars being spent on that?

Question: Does the recently passed health care legislation provide that any federal funds may be used to pay for abortions?

That question really seems pretty straight forward and should qualify for a "yes" or "no" answer. So which answer is correct? This discussion so far seems like an attempt to make them both correct. How can this possibly get so confusing?

because of the egregious abortion-coverage restrictions, we could not endorse this bill.

The legislation includes an onerous provision that requires Americans to write two separate checks if the insurance plan they choose includes abortion coverage. This unacceptable bureaucratic stigmatization could cause insurance carriers to drop abortion coverage, even though more than 85 percent of private plans currently cover this care for women. Our message to our allies in Congress and in the White House is clear: We do not accept this bill as the final word on how abortion coverage will be defined in the new health-care system. We are committed to finding opportunities to repeal these unacceptable restrictions as the new system takes shape.

Washington, D. C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement regarding the agreement between some members of Congress and the Obama White House to issue an executive order regarding the ban on federal funding for abortion in the health-care legislation.

"On a day when Americans are expected to see passage of legislation that will make health care more affordable for more than 30 million citizens, it is deeply disappointing that Bart Stupak and other anti-choice politicians would demand the restatement of the Hyde amendment, a discriminatory law that blocks low-income women from receiving full reproductive-health care. Today's action is a stark reminder of why we must repeal this unfair and insulting policy. Achieving this goal means increasing the number of lawmakers in Congress who share our pro-choice values. Otherwise, we will continue to see women's reproductive rights used as a bargaining chip."

We are committed to finding opportunities to repeal these unacceptable restrictions as the new system takes shape.

They're going to bitch until the day it's legal to slice and dice the pre-born while its head is crowning.

Or make an end-run around them.

Of course NARAL is going to bitch.
They're going to bitch until the day it's legal to slice and dice the pre-born while its head is crowning.

And NARAL has no bias?
They support not extending legal personhood to babies born alive after surviving abortion. So it wouldn't be so difficult for them to taken that next baby step, now would it?

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

And NARAL has no bias?
They support not extending legal personhood to babies born alive after surviving abortion. So it wouldn't be so difficult for them to taken that next baby step, now would it?

This thread is not about sperm....

Pro-choice certainly is not pro-preterm infant.

It's about tissue that can't live outside the womb, so sperm qualifies.

Oh, come on. You know me. I'll probably fill it with that liberal "truthiness"...

That's hilarious.
You might want to rethink that.
lol

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Armstrong for proving in his April 30th letter my contention that there are conservative letter writers who are repeating misleading information from questionable sources. I'm sure that anyone who is interested in knowing whether the PPACA, or Health Reform Act, provides a mechanism for federal funding of elective abortions can do a search on the internet, check a variety of news sources, and see who is being misleading.

I decided to go back and see what kind of liberal media I was reading, and found sources like the PBS Newshour, Chicago Sun-Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Boston Globe, as well as the bill and executive order themselves.

I was wondering what made these news sources so liberal, and I think I know why. You see, to me, anywhere that you can walk into a store and buy Hellman's Mayonnaise is back East. Very East. Of course, someone in South Dakota might disagree. They may consider themselves to even be West of center. It's my perspective that makes them East, because I am so far to the West.

The same could be said for someone on the far right of the political spectrum. Anyone (especially in the media) that isn't as far to the right as they are, is a liberal. The same could probably be said in the opposite direction, of course, which is why I avoid the news sources with a stake in the perceived truth.

I should also thank Mr. Armstrong for reading my letter, considering that it was published through the liberal media.
Steven Puvogel

Do you think that Mr. Armstrong knows that both Hellman's and Best Foods Mayonnaise are made in the same plant with almost identical ingredients?

Here's the thing on the PPACA and the abortion issue: the Dems, including the president, could have shut the door on the question. They chose not to. They left it open just enough for manipulation. Why do you suppose that is? States are opting out and the courts will probably be asked to rule sooner or later. Beyond the PPACA, tax dollars do fund abortions, here and abroad. It's a messy, ugly situation.

Did you know "Democrat" is ancient Amharian means "Babies is Good Eatin'"?

So much for you keeping a secret!

Well, I didn't give him the recipe for Stash's Secret Baby BBQ Sauce. Around these parts, "baby back ribs" have a whole different meaning.