Don Roach

As Obama soldiers on in Ohio today to bring us universal health care, I continue to be troubled by the lack of compromise on one particular issue, and that is the Stupak Amendment. For those that don’t know, this is an amendment to the legislation under proposal that would prohibit  federal funds being used “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion”.

For pro-life advocates such as myself this is a pretty large (read: huge) point. Regarding the whole business of a “public option” my personal sense of morality desires for everyone to have access to health care. If it costs me a little bit of money, I can hang with it so long as it doesn’t cost me an arm, leg, two teeth, and a vital organ. Nonetheless that same morality does not want my tax dollars to be used to pay for elective abortions (read: abortions in cases other than rape, incest, or life threatening to the mother).

Obama seems to be ignoring folks like me and that’s discouraging. He could argue that my perspective is simply that of a vocal minority but according to polls (here, here, and here) a majority of Americas do not want government funded abortions in this bill. So, Mr. President are you going to listen or are you going to continue to ramrod this down our throats?

I suspect that today in Ohio you’ll talk to us about how important passing this bill in and an anecdote about a woman probably around retirement age suffered from lack of health insurance. You’ll then talk about how we as the richest nation in the world can’t allow that to happen tugging on the heartstrings of your audience. But, Mr. President can we also allow for the federal government to support an elective procedure in the same way we shouldn’t (in my opinion) support health coverage for boob jobs. Life is certainly of greater consequence than silicone implants so how can you expect for millions of Americans to go along with your proposal with this still included?

Bah…I’m probably wasting my breath here but my hope is that those Congressmen who voted in favor of this amendment previously will not allow passage of the current bill without including this language. For some of my readers, this may seem like a very small point. It’s not for a pro-life advocate, not in the least bit. When you’re talking about life it’s that critical. The president is riding all over the country to provide health care for the poor and uninsured. I’m fighting for those who do not even (yet) have a voice for themselves, the unborn.

So, no thanks Mr. President, I do not want government-funded abortions.

“From the Roachies” will be a segment that I periodically where I post about recent comments made by you all the “Roachies”. Ok, so maybe you’re not the Roachies but I thought the title was catchy.

First up, regular commenter Joe Bernstein who writes:

I don’t know why you bother to even engage on RIF and Kmareka-you never can get an honest answer out of those folks. All you get is a lot of “equivalence” noise.

Joe, I’ve thought about this a lot. Why engage people who don’t want to be engaged by opposing opinions. Heck, RI Future was the result of Matt Jerzyk and I wanting to start a blog about right vs. left and instead him deeming it better to simply push leftist ideals sans the right on equal footing. Talk about about “equivalence”.

Me, I’ve never been one to just drink my own kool-aid which is why I’ve struggled to blog consistently. Hearing myself talk isn’t interesting enough to me. What I do like to do is debate, and I get my fix over at Kmareka and RIFuture. Nonetheless, I think I’m starting to find a more consistent niche over on my blog that’ll make regular postings, well, more regular. And I enjoy talking to regular folks out on the street who comment to me, “Don, I liked what you wrote on RI Future/Kmareka.” That let’s me know that not all people are wacked-out-liberals crazy.

This one comes from By the Way:

The only thing the Liberals can pull off are pathetic events like “DRINKING LIBERALLY” …. I wonder how many drunks, I mean democrats caused hit and runs that night, got speeding tickets, bumped into other cars and didn’t report it…..

By the Way gets the award for funniest commenter of the week. I haven’t been to any of the Drinking Liberally events (obviously) but I may make a cameo appearance to see how things are. Hopefully I won’t end up like the folks in By the Way’s post. Instead, I’ll probably be thrown out by the liberals for being conservative. To which I’ll respond, “Hey, I thought you guys were accepting of everyone? Isn’t that the definition of liberal?”

To all: Keep the comments coming, that’s the lifeblood of any blog and I hope to continue to provide you with interesting things to read.

Brian Hull of RI Future recently wrote:

I wish more legislators understood that tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing more than drain critical money from government. They don’t create jobs.

This was in response to Rep. Chris Fierro’s recent appointment to the House Finance Committee and his pledge to work to repeal the flat income tax. Rhode Islanders should have a lot of problems with Hull’s comments. Many of us are hardworking people who are seeking to provide for our families. In these tough economic times do you want people in power who think “tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing more than drain critical money from government”? I thought that the money I worked for was my money not just money I’m borrowing from the government to then be given back to Uncle Sam. Yet, Hull seems to think that cutting taxes for the wealthy drains money from government. It seems he is not coming to the table from the perspective that it’s our money and that we’re freely relinquishing some of it for a greater good(e.g. fire & police protection, snow plowing, decent schools). Were those services “free” what purpose would we need to fund the government? Or better put, if there was a private company that could perform these services to our satisfaction what need would we have of the government? In all, this is the principles progressives are floating out as fact and we need to make sure to call them on it and also make sure our society does not come to the point where we forget that the people who worked for the money should actually keep it!

Speaking of morality…this is one issue that I have scoured RI blogs over the last few years to see if any liberal/progressive can come up with a good reason to oppose the 24 hour waiting period bill that is introduced over and over in the RI house. While we focus on teachers’ union contracts, tax cuts for the rich, and all the other cliche topics of the day there are many women and young girls getting pregnant who need options.

I’ll save for another day my disgust with laws that don’t allow parents to make decisions for their children in these matters while at the same time holding them accountable for other actions their children may take, but suffice it to say it bothers me that the 24 hour waiting period bill does not get enough support.

Essentially, and I haven’t seen this year’s bill, the bill requires a waiting period of 24 hours to decide whether or not the woman would still like to go through the abortion. She would be afforded information regarding alternatives available to her and it would allow her to make a very, very reasoned decision.

Seems simple to me, yet I have not seen any liberal type come out in support of it. Planned Parenthood – an oxymoron if there ever was – actually wrote this about the right to know act last year:

Despite its deceptive name, H. 5334, the “Women’s Right to Know Act,” doesn’t tell women anything they’re not already being told.  Instead, it imposes a 24-hour waiting period, intended only to make it more difficult for women seeking an abortion to receive the care they desire.

Yeah, that’s the desired result of the bill to make it more difficult for women seeking the abortion..er…care they desire. Come on! Is that all you got?

To me, an organization with the name, Planned Parenthood, should be all over this bill seeking to help “parents” better “plan” what to do in unplanned situations. Instead, their “hood”-winking us by trying to tell us that a bill asking a woman to wait a day to think about the abortion is somehow going to make it extremely difficult for a woman to get an abortion.

Let me ask you this, how many quick decisions have you made only to think back and wish you had taken a moment to think about it a little longer? I can think of a few……..dozen.

Going back to my earlier posts, liberals try to win the semantic arguments in all morality based issues. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric. Make the decision yourself. I’m being up front with you that I believe women will make more informed decisions if they wait 24 hours and I hope that some may choose not to have an abortion. But at minimum, at least we would have provided them an opportunity to fully understand all options available to them.

It would seem liberals don’t want that.

You’ll often here that come from the mouths of liberals who believe that “morality” should be outside the bounds of governmental oversight. Out of the other side of their mouths, liberals will then tell you we need a government sponsored health insurance. Why? Because we cannot have millions of people without health insurance. Why not? Because, as the richest country in the worlds it’s “wrong” to have anyone die or suffer because they have inadequate access to health care.

Ok, I think I have. The government should not legislate morality – except if its the morality of the left. Now things are becoming more clear. If the left thinks its right, by golly it must be right. Not only is it “right” it is “a right” something that is inalienable to all people.

Or so goes the thinking.

But I’m getting tired of the liberals shoving their morality down my throat and then saying I have no right, justification, et. al. to put forth my set of morality to be judged by the populous. For example, I’m an ardent pro-life guy. My morality says everyone person who is about to be born has the right to be born. That right outweighs the woman’s right to decide whether that baby fits within her life paradigm. Liberals will tell me in one breath that the government shouldn’t legislate my morality and then say we should legislate homosexual marriage? Huh? Their reply would be that marriage is a “right” for all people.

See where this is going? Liberals like to phrase their morality in language that makes it less a moral precept and more a universal human right. It’s a good tact to take if you’re able to redefine the semantics in the debate. People begin to think, “wow, I think every one is entitled to human rights…maybe any kind of marriage is a right to all humans.” On the flip side, they start talking about discrimination, bigotry, and the like referencing their opponents position. As a nation still hung over from the hundreds of years of minority oppression such tactics still resonate with a populace looking to “not harm” more than “do good”. Some folks who lived during the era before the Civil Rights movement still lament many of the deplorable actions of that time period.

But it’s all fools gold. Liberals want to legislate morality as much as conservatives do. Just visit RI Future and read the following:

• America is addicted to an unsustainable way of life – a nice little diatribe to make people feel bad about themselves because we’re killing the environment.
• Frank Caprio and same-sex marriage – Is “conservative” Catholic Caprio really for the redefinition of marriage? He better be so say liberals
• Bill Lynch and tax cuts for the rich – What? You made the money and you think you have the “right” to keep it!? Heck no, say the liberals.

So next time any liberal tells you that we can’t legislate morality, just remind them that everyday they are trying to do just that and would be more honest in admitting that fact.