A recent missive from the Family Research Council bore the headline, "The Gloves Come Off." What major moral values issue were they referring to, I wondered. Was the Obama administration planning an aggressive effort to promote abortion or gay marriage?
Actually, the Family Research Council issued a call to arms over Obama's plan to push expanded health care early in the administration. "Among other things, Obama's plan would increase Medicaid spending, expand anti-parental features of the State Children's health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and overhaul medical records technology," FRC warned.
A couple of weeks ago, Jill Stanek, an influential pro-life activist, wrote an article listing the pro-choice activists working for Obama. About Tom Daschle, the health care czar, she wrote:. "Daschle is a rabid pro-abort who also detests abstinence education and supports nationalized health care, i.e. taxpayer-funded abortions."
Stay tuned to see if opposition to national health care becomes a new Pro-Family issue.
UPDATE: Jill Stanek elaborates in an email:
"As a pro-lifer I oppose nationalized health care because of the liberal insistence on abortion coverage. Hillary wanted it, Obama wants it, and Daschle wants it, to name three.Further and as a related aside, pro-lifers are part of a group pushing for
the free market offering of privatized interstate health insurance of one's
choice - not tied to one's employer if one desires, and not regulated so one
can only purchase from a company within one's own state.This would allow pro-lifers to choose health insurance companies that do not
cover abortion and/or birth control. That is the real "pro-choice" position
on health insurance coverage. Of course, the other side opposes this. "
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Marian
Excellent questions.
My personal opinion is because the "family research council" is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual hive of bigots and ultra-conservatives and far-right-wing religious fruitcakes whose only desire is to inject Civil, Secular Law with their personal beliefs. Whatever those happen to be at the moment, generally whatever will grab them a headline.
They care about no family and no child. Not really.
They push to amend state and federal law to exclude any rights for unmarried opposite-gender partners & gay couples, and would happily condemn millions of children to growing up in loveless orphanage institutions (ie, without any parents) rather than allow a single/unmarried person or same-sex couple to adopt. They spend millions to fight same-sex marriage, calling it 'the greatest danger to the family', yet ignore the staggering divorce rate among heterosexuals. The list of their inconsistencies and lies and hypocrisy is a mile long.
That's just the tip of their fascist iceberg. This is one instance where I hope global warming sets in soon enough to melt it before their idiocy sinks any more ships.
Talk about zealots. These are people who view everything through the lens of abortion and gays. They'd oppose providing health care for children and for the poor because of abortion. Unbelievable.
Oh yes! Finally, an administration that will round up pregnant women and force them to undergo abortions. I seem to recall that the MSM (make that the LIBERAL MSM) conspired to keep that part of the platform secret.
Do these folks really think they are at the center of the universe and it's all about them -- no, not just about them but against them?
How about the 44 million ununsured and the yet-uncounted families (and not just gay marriage families)losing insurance as they lose their jobs, their homes and their life savings? Don't they count in "pro-family" policy?
Look, if some adults don't want to be a recipient of a national health care, then they can choose not to avail themselves of the service. And while they are at it, I'll take court-worthy sworn statements that neither they nor any member of their family several generations hence will ever participate in any future medical protocol that was developed with stem cell research.
Jill Stanek was one os many people that spread false information about Obama's stance on the "born alive" issue. Her statements were debunked by factcheck, politifact, and other factual sources, such as the Republican Illinois Senator that introduced the bill.
Another example of sinning in attempts to stop abortion.
Let me submit this:
You are a taxpayer. You are morally opposed to prostitution. But your government, deeming that sex is a health need (and thus a "right" according to the "real compassionates") for men, says that your tax money is going to be used to fund prostitution services for single, ugly men. How would you feel? Would you protest? Would you want your money spent on such services that pierced your very spiritual core?
Many of you attempt to hold Christians hostage by saying they are lacking compassion and care for others by not supporting nationalized health care. Many Christians and conservatives recognize that charity is NOT best dispensed by the government in the form of forced taxpaying. And furthermore, Christians and conservative ideals are better vehicles for empowering individuals than liberal and socialistic ideals that end up, historically, devaluing the human individual.
There are many other arguments to be made about nationalized healthcare. I believe that Christians and conservatives WANT to help those in need, but they do not believe in imposing socialism on everyone in order to achieve the goal.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.