This page was last updated on March 31, 2010.
Tax dollars can’t be used for abortion; Jim Hinton; Beaver County Times; March 31, 2010.
I believe Mr. Hinton began his letter-writing last March with “We should keep an eye on Limbaugh.” Mr. Hinton also wrote a couple of letters (no longer on the Times website) during August 2009 supporting lefty positions. In recent letters, Mr. Hinton complained that a House Republican Conference didn’t get enough coverage by the Fox News Channel and penned a letter entitled “Get facts straight before criticizing.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“In response to Friday’s letter to the editor, ‘U.S. taxpayers will pay for abortions,’ the facts make it impossible for that to happen.”
[RWC] If the letter to which Mr. Hinton refers exists, it appeared only in the print edition of the Times. If you are familiar with his letter-writing body of work, Mr. Hinton writing about “the facts” is a hoot. I suggest you verify personally “the facts” Mr. Hinton cites in this letter, if you care.
“The Hyde amendment made it illegal for taxpayer money to be used for an abortion. The new bill upholds that ban.”
[RWC] Surprise, not true. There is a reason it’s called the Hyde AMENDMENT. As all amendments except constitutional amendments, the Hyde Amendment is not permanent, standalone law and must be specifically attached to each new relevant spending bill for it to be in effect. That was not the case for the Obamacare bills.
“In the new bill, anyone qualifying for a government subsidy can buy insurance from any company they choose.
“But, insurance companies will be required to delete the abortion payment option or offer it in a separate policy.
“If the bill were a single-payer government bill, the only way to pay for an abortion would be with out-of-pocket money.
“A single-payer system would be a total takeover of our health care.”
[RWC] At least Mr. Hinton got one fact right.
“This bill is not a takeover. It’s an additional system to give us another option and at the same time creating health-care industry regulations to protect people from being dropped from coverage.”
[RWC] Four of the previous five paragraphs are simply talking points. It doesn’t take a genius to listen to the demonization of healthcare insurers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, et cetera to figure out the goal is to wipe out private sector healthcare.
Though Obamacare doesn’t seem to contain a so-called “public option,” consider the following comment by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a proponent of a government-run healthcare monopoly as to the true purpose of the “public option.” On April 18, 2009, Ms. Schakowsky said, “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.” The combined effect of Obamacare’s provisions will be to do what the “public option” would do, only slightly slower.
“Don’t believe the scare tactics from conservative radicals. The executive order signed by the president, the Hyde amendment and the bill itself make it illegal for taxpayer money to be used for an abortion.”
[RWC] The executive order is a joke and I bet Mr. Hinton knows it, as do President Obama and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). Mr. Hinton must know one of Mr. Obama’s very first actions (on only his third day in office) was to override the “Mexico City Policy.” The MCP prohibited federal funding for nongovernment organizations performing or promoting abortions in foreign countries. Mr. Hinton wants us to believe a president who believes in U.S. taxpayer funding of abortions in foreign countries would sign an EO he actually expected would prohibit the same in the U.S. I was born at night, but not last night.
In any case, executive orders cannot override laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. If an effect of Obamacare is to allow taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, no EO can stop it. If EOs could override law as Mr. Hinton wants us to believe, we’d have a dictatorship because any president could override any law he didn’t like simply by issuing an EO.
What is a “conservative radical?” Someone who doesn’t share Mr. Hinton’s lefty positions? Mr. Hinton doesn’t tell us. Are the “pro-life Democrats” who don’t believe as Mr. Hinton also “conservative radicals?” Then again, perhaps the actions of Mr. Stupak and his caucus of “pro-life Democrats” laid bare the myth of “pro-life” Democrats.
“Take some time to look at the bill.”
[RWC] Too bad Mr. Hinton didn’t take his own advice. In truth, I suspect the last thing Mr. Hinton wants is for people to “[t]ake some time to look at the bill.” Why do you think the President and congressional Democrats were so hell-bent on forcing a vote before the Easter recess, as the Senate did when it delayed its 2009 Christmas recess for a Christmas Eve vote? They didn’t want wavering “yes” votes to have to face home district constituents who took “some time to look at the bill.”
People who did look at the Obamacare bills were NARAL and Planned Parenthood, huge supporters of taxpayer-funded abortions. Does anyone care to speculate as to why they did not object - not even a peep - to the Obamacare bills if everything is as Mr. Hinton claims?
Please read my paper entitled “Healthcare.”
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.