VIDEO: https://www.americanpatriotsprevail.com/Sen.html

ARTICLE: https://www.americanpatriotsprevail.com/Health_Care_Reform__750.html

The rabidly pro-abortion liberals are promising to vote against the bill if Stupak Amendment language is included. Obama even insists on federal abortion funding. The Democrats with a mostly pro-life record have not sounded quite as committed to opposing a final bill that funds abortion, but some like Ben Nelson of Nebraska have promised to do so. Either way, some Democrats will have to violate their promise for the bill to pass. None will have “cover” because the few people who care about it will know the whole truth.

Because no compromise is possible the way this “reform” is structured, reducing the concern exclusively to abortion would, if pro-life Democrats were being honest, defeat the bill.

The bottom line that we should all acknowledge is that there is no way a bill that does not include government funding of abortions will pass. That is for certain.

Contrary to what I’ve read on here, it is in Republicans’ best interest to support any amendment that legitimately blocks abortion funding as such an amendment is more likely to reduce than to increase chances of final passage.

I am one who opposes the bill based upon freedom, but I am afraid that there are many Americans out there who would be more than happy to trade freedom for security. It is a common temptation. However, I believe that we can dissuade them.

For the Americans who discount freedom it is important to raise the issue of trust. We must show that the bill in fact does not offer security. It raises taxes, retards economic growth, costs jobs, and opens the door to the rationing of health care. Destroying the illusion of security will lead more Americans to hold on to their freedom even if they are willing to trade it in principle.

I am glad that Stupak passed. It reflects the pro-life consensus in this country. I am glad that it has stirred up opposition on the left. A more vocal abortion debate should be tied to the issue of trust.

We need to show that if health care passes, then abortion and euthenasia will be used for cost control. Do we trust the government to stop there? If so, is this government plan worth sacrificing freedom for?

So we’re getting crap built on crap opinions and before you know the Consitution demands same sex marriage but yet the First Amendment doesn’t protect political speech.

That is what I would want a reform to prohibit. No use of Precedents in Judicial Review. All questions settled by first principles only.

And with all due respect, I think the issue of subsidized abortion is a minor front in the pro-life movement, one that could have been given a temporary pass for a far greater goal of saving this nation. The main issue has always been the legality of abortion in the first place, not how they’re paid for, and a person is naive to think that any type of universal health care won’t eventually include some sort of public funding for abortion. It’s only a mater of time no matter how many temporary concessions you get from Nancy Pelosi. The Democrats will offer you anything to get this passed, but you’re making a deal with the devil.

I really think had the grassroots given “permission” to House members to vote down Stupak in order to defeat this bill, the Republicans would have followed Shadegg’s strategy and voted present, and the bill would have been voted down.

To try and make this health care bill “better” if it passes is to already admit defeat.

I completely agree that talk is cheap. But if talk is cheap, then angry-sounding letters with no action following them are even cheaper.

Knowing that talk is cheap makes NRTL’s position on the House bill even more confusing. You say that NRTL opposed the House bill, yet you did nothing to stop final passage, other than send around a letter or two here and there.

Why didn’t NRTL score final passage of the House bill? If you are worried about a federal health program using taxpayer funds to pay for abortion, why didn’t you do everything in your power to prevent the creation of the federal health program?

It looks from the outside like you scored the vote that everyone knew was going to win (Stupak), and then shirked from doing anything on a vote that was up in the air (final passage).

I appreciate your “concern” about the House bill, but mere concern doesn’t stop bad legislation from becoming law. Actions speak louder than words, and when it came time to take action to stop a federal takeover of health care, you typed a letter and then proceeded to sit on your hands. Americans who believe in the sanctity of life and the necessity of freedom and liberty deserve better.

Cheers,

Sean

The health care issue is not about ‘freedom’ Eric, get over yourself.

Health care is about our moral obligation to each other. ..the ‘greater good’. Who benefits from a healthy nation? I can’t think of any sector of our society that wouldn’t share in these benefits.

This so called ‘freedom’ you hold to your chest is nothing more than selfishness and mean-spiritedness wrapped up in the flag. As proof of this I refer you to the Republican so-called health care alternative. This is the best that their ‘best minds’ could come up with?

If conservatives want it ‘their way’ to political power they had better learn to play well with others or they will just end up ‘playing with themselves’.

As such, we should be attacking this bill on any and all fronts. We should attack it on abortion, attack it on the death panels, attack it on freedom, attack it on bureaucracy, and attack it as a typical liberal tax and spend bill which will hurt the economy and explode the debt & deficit. Leave no stone unturned. Turn up the heat anyway we can on any of the Democrats who appear weak. All of these are our tactics.

Our strategy is to delay as much as possible to get it as close as possible to the elections of 2010. The closer to those elections, the less likely this bill will pass. To be clear, this is a strategy of desperation – remember the congressional control numbers as mentioned above. However it is the only strategy that has any hope. Even the Democrats know this which is why Pelosi pushed for a House vote ASAP. I think if it would have gone another month, it would not have passed the House. The reason this is a hopeful strategy is because the voting public is against it by a slim but concrete majority.

We need to keep the public on our side. It is the only influence we have on the Democrats. The public is not monolithic in their opposition. Their opposition covers the spectrum of reasons and so we need to keep all of those components on our side. This is tight and so we cannot afford to give up on anything.

I wish we could focus on the freedom aspect and gain enough support simply from that, but I am afraid that our civic education and knowledge have been eroded far too much.

That’s why the liberals will always frame their attack upon freedom in a blanket of compassion. Due to the ignorance of the American people and the successful liberal indoctrination through the public schools, the media and entertainment, freedom will never take precedent over what is perceived to be good or compassionate (in the liberal view, of course).

Can this ever be turned around? We will likely see in the upcoming elections. But I doubt it.