The Snear Of Evil As Axelrod Signals Obama Will Strip Abortion Language From Pelosi’s Death Care Bill Which Conned Stupak - 'Consensus' On Climate Change Is 'Fake,' Scientists Say – Terrorists Have No Rights On The Battlefield, Which, Thanks To Obama, Will Be America


You want to see the snear of evil, look at Axelrod as he signals Obama will try to strip abortion language from health care bill! Pelosi played Stupak like a fiddle to keep her death care monstronsity bill alive!‏


Obama to Enter Abortion Battle, Adviser Says

White House adviser suggests Obama may strike abortion restriction amendment from health reform bill | VIDEO

 Updated November 15, 2009

Axelrod Signals Obama Will Try to Strip Abortion Language From Health Care Bill


The amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restrict federal subsidies from going toward private plans that offer abortion coverage. David Axelrod says the amendment changes the 'status quo,' something the president cannot abide.

David Axelrod reaches for his glasses as he speaks at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, in Omaha, Neb., Oct. 9. (AP Photo)

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation. 
In doing so, the president would be heeding the call of abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood that have called the White House their "strongest weapon" in keeping such restrictions out of the bill. 
The abortion amendment was tacked on to the House health care bill and was a key factor in securing the votes of moderate Democrats before the bill was approved by a narrow margin last weekend. The amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restrict federal subsidies from going toward private plans that offer abortion coverage. 
Axelrod said in an interview Sunday that the amendment changes the "status quo," something the president cannot abide. 
"The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn't believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion," Axelrod said. "This shouldn't be a debate about abortion. And he's going to work with Senate and the House to try and ensure that at the end of the day, the status quo is not changed ... I believe that there are discussions ongoing to how to adjust it accordingly." 
Axelrod said the president believes that issue, as well as the ongoing dispute over what kind of government-run insurance plan, if any, should be included in the overhaul, "can and will be worked through before it reaches his desk." 
Axelrod spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." 
The president already said last week that he did not support the amendment. 
"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions," Obama told ABC News on Monday. "And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but on the other hand that we're not restricting women's insurance choices." 
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told "Fox News Sunday" that the American people do not want any taxpayer money going toward abortion, as he gloated over how long the Senate could potentially hold up the health care bill. 
"I think it would be very difficult to pass a bill that, in effect, either directly or indirectly provided tax money to pay for abortions," McConnell said. 
The timetable for Senate action on health care has been thrown into question, though Axelrod said the White House still wants to "get it done" this year. McConnell said "delay" will be a hallmark of the Senate process going forward. He complained that the current bill would raise taxes and cut Medicare, an allegation that was backed up by a Washington Post article Sunday that showed the agency administering Medicare and Medicaid found that a proposed $500 billion in Medicare cuts would in turn cut benefits for seniors. 
"There will be a lot of amendments over a lot of weeks," McConnell said. "I mean, the Senate is not the House. You saw in the House three votes and it was over in one day.
Look, we spent four weeks on a farm bill in the last Congress, eight weeks on an energy bill earlier this decade. This will be on the floor for quite a long time. I think it ought to be on the floor at least as long as it's been in Harry Reid's office."



Analysis: The Threats to Pro-Life Values Remaining in the U.S. House Health Care Bill

By Peter J. Smith and Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 13, 2009 ( - Although the passage of the Pitts-Stupak amendment has been hailed as a pro-life gain in the fight over health-care reform, the recently passed House plan still has serious flaws troubling to pro-life advocates. has provided a preliminary summary of right-to-life concerns that will be updated as the debate over H.R. 3962, the the Affordable Health Care for America Act, continues to move forward.

·                  School-based health-clinics: Sec. 2511 (p.1352) prohibits school-based health clinic grants from being used for abortion, and specifies that eligible clinics are those that do not perform abortion. However, no language prohibits school-based health clinics from giving school-girls referrals to an offsite abortion facility. [ ]

·                  Expanded access and funding for abortifiacient contraception (Sec. 2526)


·                  Sections 258 and 259: though containing some conscience protections, the bill does not clearly extend to health-care entities and workers that object to contraception, esp. abortifacient contraception.  Thus health-care providers with these moral objections, such as Catholic hospitals, would be affected. [Source:]


Pro-life advocates fear that H.R. 3962 will effect health-care rationing on a scale that does not yet exist in the United States, but is a way of life in countries with socialized health care such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

·                  The law of supply and demand: Congressional Budget Office forecasts that  H.R. 3962 will insure an extra 36 million non-elderly individuals between 2013-2019.  Some analysts conclude that, since the supply of health care professionals will not be able to keep up with such a sudden influx of demand, that this will likely lead to rationing.

·                  Price controls: Section 104 allows the Health Insurance Exchange Commissioner has the authority to kick out insurance companies participating in the health insurance exchange that he judges have "excessive or unjustified premium increases." Private insurance companies face the choice of going out of business altogether or rationing health care services as a way to absorb the revenue loss. [Source NRLC]

·                  Lack of protection in balancing cost and quality: Sec. 2401 establishes a "Center for Quality Improvement" that has four prime responsibilities: one, identifying existing "best practices;" two, create new ones; three, evaluate the old against the new; and four, implement the best practices in health-care.  The bill does guard against "quality-adjusted life year measures or any other methodologies that can be used to deny benefits to a beneficiary against the beneficiary's wishes on the basis of the beneficiary's age, life expectancy, present or predicted disability, or expected quality of life."  However, as NRLC points out, the stipulation applies only in the "development" of such practices, and advances no such safeguard regarding the center's other three roles.

·                  Sec. 1159 commissions the creation of Medicare reimbursement standards that ostensibly provide incentives for "high value care;" it, too, does not guard against "quality-adjusted" rationing.


·                  "Nudging": Section 1233: offers to pay for voluntary consultations once every five years on end-of-life options.  As many critics have pointed out, in principle, this provision gives a financial incentive to doctors to take advantage of uncertainty or vulnerability on the part of the patient in order to "nudge" him or her towards options that would cost less. 

·                  The Assisted Suicide loophole: Sections 240 and 1233: Health-care providers are forbidden from disseminating literature that encourages "assisted suicide", "mercy killing", or "euthanasia." However no section defines what the terms mean - opening up a serious loophole.  States like Oregon and Washington do not use the term "assisted suicide." Instead the term is "physician assisted death." In effect, this bill fails to prevent assisted suicide options from being presented under another name.


·                  Federal funding of Planned Parenthood-style permissive sex education programs “to prevent teen pregnancy” (section 2526), similar to that stipulated in the Senate version of Obamacare


See also Pro-Life Leaders React to Health Bill Outcome: Caution Outweighs Celebration

View Story on



House bill will hike costs of health care $289 billion
'This report confirms what virtually every independent expert has been saying'
--The Hill


CMS: House health bill will hike costs $289B

By Molly K. Hooper - 11/14/09 03:42 PM ET


The House-approved healthcare overhaul would raise the costs of healthcare by $289 billion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).


The CMS report is a blow to the White House and House Democrats who have vowed that healthcare reform would curb the growth of healthcare spending. CMS's analysis is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the cost estimate conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) because CMS did not review tax provisions, which help offset the price tag of the Democrats' measure.

However, the CMS analysis clearly states that the House bill falls short in attaining a key goal of the Democrats' effort to reform the nation's healthcare system: "With the exception of the proposed reduction in Medicare... the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future healthcare cost growth rates."

Republicans immediately seized on CMS's conclusions.

The long-awaited report should serve as a "stark warning to every Republican, Democrat and Independent worried about the future of this nation," Ways and Means Committee ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said in a statement on Saturday. 


false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 v:shapes="_x0000_i1026">

Though House Republicans pressed to have this analysis completed before the lower chamber voted on the Democrats' sweeping healthcare reform bill last week, it was not ready until late Friday. Chief CMS Actuary Richard Foster, who prepared the report, recently told The Hill that he and his staff had only a few days to review the bill before it was voted on. 

Brendan Daly, communications director for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said, "The report shows that our health reform bill will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by five years -- significantly longer than any proposal in recent years," adding, "Medicare actuaries estimate $100 billion more in savings than CBO from Medicaid and Medicare."

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) highlighted the CMS report on Saturday in a written statement. "This report once again discredits Democrats’ assertions that their $1.3 trillion government takeover of health care will lower costs, and it confirms that this bill violates President Obama’s promise to ‘bend the cost curve.’ It’s now beyond dispute that their bill will raise costs, which is exactly what the American people don’t want."

Republicans predicted that if the CMS numbers were available last Saturday when the House voted on the Democrats' healthcare bill, the measure would not have passed.

“This report confirms what virtually every independent expert has been saying: Speaker Pelosi’s healthcare bill will increase costs, not decrease them. I hope my colleagues in the Senate heed CMS’ findings and refuse to rush ahead until any bill under consideration can be certified to actually reduce healthcare costs," Camp said. 

According to the 31-page report, the House-passed bill would increase costs, cut Medicare and expand Medicaid.

“In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures] would increase by $289 billion," the report notes.

"About three-fifths" or more than 60 percent of the uninsured would gain coverage by an expansion in Medicaid eligibility.

Medicare would be cut by "more than one-half trillion dollars ($571 billion), ... possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries," according to the report, and smaller companies would be "inclined to terminate their existing coverage."

Camp said that the nonpartisan analysis demonstrates that the Democrats' bill "does the opposite of everything they've been wanting to do" in terms of reducing overall health costs.

He added the CMS report shows that "this is not healthcare reform, this is entitlement expansion."

A Democratic aide said the CMS and CBO findings are not that different: "While the actuaries do not show tax increases, adding those amounts from JCT would also illustrated that the proposal reduces the deficit over the next 10 years."

In an interview with The Hill on Saturday afternoon, Camp pointed out that CMS actuarial numbers were cited by Democrats back in 2003 during the Medicare prescription drug debate. CMS estimated at that time that the GOP-crafted Medicare bill would cost more than $550 billion over 10 years while CBO estimated its pricetag at $395 over the same period. The CMS cost estimate did not emerge until after the final conference bill was approved by Congress.

CMS's findings are not binding on Congress, however. Congress must abide by CBO and JCT estimates.


Gore event draws 200 protesters in Boca...
Dems at risk of losing Obama's old Senate seat...

New Yorkers cry for execution of 9-11 plotters
'They should have taken care of them in Guantanamo Bay'
--New York Post


Giuliani: 9-11 trial is 'repeating mistake of history' 
Former New York City mayor says Obama granting terrorists' wish
--Fox News


2006: Obama argues for 'full military trial' for 'war crimes'
'To do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Convention'


Blinded prison guard: Don't jail terrorists in New York
Attack victim warns, 'After all these years, you'd think they should know'
--Fox News


He bows ... again
Controversy renews after president bends low before Japan's emperor
--Los Angeles Times


Clinton: 'Obsequent' president meets emperor
Near-bow broke 200 years of U.S. protocol
--New York Times


Assume the position
Sound off on President Obama bowing to the emperor of Japan


Sound off on President Obama bowing to the emperor of Japan

Read Related Story

<< Return to main polls page

Sound off on President Obama bowing to the emperor of Japan (1326 votes)

I wish he would bow to the U.S. Constitution that way

42% (560)

His body language betrays his intentions - surrender of U.S. sovereignty

26% (348)

I'm surprised he didn't apologize for the U.S. defeating Japan in 1945

15% (198)

It was a narcissistic display to show he wasn't bound by the same protocol every other U.S. president has respected

9% (119)

He bowed low enough to shine the emperor's shoes

2% (24)

In the U.S. we shake hands, in Japan they bow - he was merely being culturally appropriate and polite

2% (24)

General Douglas MacArthur is spinning in his grave

1% (16)

It looked silly and contrived

1% (12)

It's a non-issue

1% (7)

At least he didn't vomit on the emperor like George Bush Sr. did on the Japanese prime minister in 1992

0% (6)

I wish the right wing cared as much about providing health care for all Americans as they care about fine points of international protocol

0% (6)


0% (6)

Obama grew up in multicultural Hawaii - I'm sure he knows what he's doing in this kind of situation

0% (0)


'Consensus' on Climate Change Is 'Fake,' Scientists Say

A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is "consensus" in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.

The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: "You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a 'consensus' of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .

"The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no."

The five signees of the letter include professors from Princeton University, the University of Virginia and the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The letter refers to an earlier open letter sent to Congress by those five signees and others declaring: "The sky is not falling. The earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them. . .

"We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc., but in fact there is no such evidence. It doesn't exist."

The Oct. 29 letter also notes that the American Physical Society, an organization of physicists, did not sign the AAAS letter and states the society is "at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you."

The petition reads in part: "Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth's climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

"The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes — natural and human — on the Earth's climate."

The 160 signees of the petition range alphabetically from Harold M. Agnew, former White House science councilor and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, to Martin V. Zombeck, a physicist formerly with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and include Ivar Giaever, who shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973.