John Adler has posted his appearance on Fox News Sunday to discuss health care reform. He appeared today with another "no" vote on the House bill, Jason Altmire (D-PA), who despite representing a district McCain won by 11 points, sounded considerably more positive about the possibility of voting "yes" this time instead of voting to "do nothing." Both Democrats say they've not made a final decision.
The highlights that in my opinion lead to a pretty clear conclusion:
Adler is again on Fox News.
Adler is still saying he needs to "read the bill first" which in this case, since the Senate bill has been available for months, means see the final deal for a reconciliation fix. But can any reconciliation deal truly be final before the House votes on the Senate bill?
Adler keeps talking about the needs of "my businesses" and cost containment, and not at all about the health needs of his residents. Indeed, if you visited from Mars, you would never imagine from the interview that he is elected by citizens rather than selected by business owners.
He wants to change the fee-for-service system, and isn't satisfied with the pilot projects in the bill. He wants to "mandate" that the "good pilot projects" (with good patient outcomes that save money) automatically go national. That's fine, but does it fit in reconciliation, and does a more radical program lose votes with more cautious members? As Wallace says, this was talked about for a year but didn't get traction. Also, usually reconciliation measures expire after ten years, so how could you wait to see how the pilot projects do and then mandate something for a year or two?
Adler is supposedly "pro-choice" but sits by silently as the "pro-lifers" openly hold the bill hostage. He's enabling them. If he cared in the slightest, he would at least say something, much less cancel out Stupak's switched vote personally.
Adler says he's had good recent conversations with the President and the Speaker, but she is "looking elsewhere" for yes votes.
Do you agree that adds up to a no? It infuriates me but that's what I see.
It's amazing to watch the Republicans twist and turn sometimes in order to get around the stands they take on issues. For the Burlington County GOP, it appears that abortion is only a litmus test when the candidate doesn't have alot of money:
In case Ocean County does not field a candidate and Runyan becomes the establishment-backed favorite, Murphy thinks being pro-choice will bring the former Eagles tackle down.
"If the scenario unfolds where Jon Runyan faces Justin Murphy for the nomination, I can guarantee you I will be the nominee," said Murphy. "I'm not trying to be a trash talker on that. I can tell you why in one word: abortion. If there is a choice between one pro-choice candidate and one pro-life candidate in this election, the base of the party will support me."
Burlington County GOP Chairman Bill Layton argued that the abortion issue won't be a deal breaker with Republican primary voters.
The conservatives aren't going to like that answer. We're going to have to remember that abortion isn't a deal breaker on the right the next time they bring back the litmus test when the candidate isn't bringing a brinks truck to the campaign. They'll use life to incite and then try to selectively claim it's a non issue when the candidate can pay for a few extra mailers. Those are some principles. Somewhere George Gilmore is throwing things right now as he continues to hear Layton make declarations about what the party does and doesn't need.
Senator Bob Menendez shines as he joins Frank Lautenberg and other senators in opposing and defeating Ben Nelson's abortion amendment to the health care reform bill.
"This amendment would roll back the clock on a woman's right to choose," said Menendez. "It unfairly singles women out and takes away benefits they already have. It singles out our daughters and legislates limits on their reproductive health - their reproductive rights. If we were to do the same to men - if we were to single out men's reproductive health in this legislation - imagine the outcry. Imagine if men were denied access to procedures. Imagine if they were denied access to prescription drugs. But that is exactly what we are doing to our daughters with this amendment - rolling back the hands of time. I personally find that offensive, as do women across this country. The language of this bill has been carefully negotiated to ensure that we are preserving a woman's right to choose, but doing so without federal funding. To claim otherwise is hypocritical and misleading."
The roll call is here. Yea was effectively a vote to kill the amendment.
The healthcare debate has allowed Congressman Chris Smith to get a good deal of attention and he now has a new distinction according to catholics.org along with Congressman Bart Stupak for getting their amendment included in the health bill that passed:
It is men and women like Bart Stupak and Chris Smith who are the models of public service for all Catholics and other Christians.
By late Monday, Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado had collected more than 40 signatures from fellow members who vowed they would not vote for a combined House-Senate health care bill if it contains language "that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law."
It really is pretty amazing that while Congressman Smith pushed for this during the years that his party held the White House and controlled Congress, it took the Democrats taking control to have him get the results. It still remains to be seen whether the language of the Stupak amendment survives a conference committee, but it has made it this far.
Ah Congressman Chris Smith. He's doing his best to make sure he stays on the all abortion, all the time message. It's almost like he's having his own debate about heatlhcare and it comes complete with his own facts, statistics and theories. Here's the video and we'll look at the highlights following:Redtory thinks the Congressman's comments and conspiracy theories put the GOP touted death panels in the rear view mirror:
Never mind Sarah Palin's ridiculous "Death Panels" meme that was flogged to boredom by the mainstream media, sheesh, that's so last month's old news. The Democrats' wimpy, industry prostituted healthcare reforms now grinding through the congressional sausage factory have been re branded as the "Abortion Industry Bailout Bill of 2009" - a heinous piece of legislation according to Congressman Smith that will "cause hundreds of thousands of additional abortions per year" - apparently through a wickedly clever combination of marketing, public subsidies and government funding of mysterious "new venues" (for abortions).
Oh, you may think Rep. Smith is a crackpot, but he confidently asserts he's got "empirical evidence" on his side verifying that flaunting wads of cash in front of "vulnerable women" who feel they have absolutely "nowhere else to turn" has been proven to "tip the scales" in favour of incentivizing them to expeditiously liquidate their fetuses rather than turning to a local "pregnancy care center."
Smith has been totally over the top with his rhetoric throughout this debate. This video was just a continuation of the attacks he has offered over the past few months, which he used at the conservative Values Voters Summit recently:
Smith predicted that abortions could rise by as much as one-third because of the massive abortion subsidies and mandates found in HR 3200 and the Kennedy and Baucus bills.
"Never have I been more concerned about the promotion of abortion coming out of the White House," Smith said. "The unborn child and his or her mother are more at risk now than ever, since Roe v. Wade itself."
He added that Obama and his administration have been "demonstrably false and extraordinarily misleading" in talking about abortion and the health care bills.
This is becoming common place for Smith to attack and distort the healthcare debate. Smith also said in his video comments that what the Republicans are doing is "healthy disagreement" and the President should stop labeling it as bickering. So using rhetoric like "death panels" and "abortion bailouts" are healthy disagreements? Come on. He made sure to also hit the media mentioning all stations but Fox for not "fairly" covering all sides of the debate as he put it.
Check out this interview and exchange on CNN between the host Rick Sanchez and our very own Congressman Chris Smith. Sanchez came to the table very well prepared and informed on the bill to debate the specifics with Smith:
Obama misled Pope on his abortion agenda, congressman charges
I'm sorry, I missed the introduction of that agenda by the President. Smith is actually talking about the current healthcare debate going on in Congress. We'll let the headline go because the news service needed to get the remarks of Congressman Smith to give them the opportunity to come up with the headline.:
In remarks on the House floor last week, Congressman Chris Smith argued that President Obama purposely misled Pope Benedict XVI when he said that he "wants to reduce abortion" at their July 10 meeting.
Smith recalled the president's statement to the Pope and pointed out that Obama has repeated it several times to different audiences. And yet, Smith charged, Obama?s actions have not aligned with his words. "He says one thing and does precisely the opposite."
Smith is using the latest talking point for why we can't have healthcare reform, that is actually meant to promote more abortions and he made sure that people were clear in what he means:
Rep. Smith concluded his remarks by encouraging his fellow congressmen to vote against the health care bill and insisting that "[t]here will be children who will die if this legislation becomes law simply because the subsidies are there to effectuate their deaths."
As Congressman Chris Smith has said regarding the stealth abortion agenda, "This is the big one!"
So by the Congressman's logic, anyone who wants to get healthcare coverage to people is secretly trying to advance the "stealth abortion agenda." I really thought we were trying to get people healthcare coverage. I'm so naive. Thanks for educating me on that one Congressman Smith. These latest comments are actually a continuation of Smith's attacks on the President. But Smith still wasn't done. He sent this press release out the other day continuing the rhetoric and scare tactics warning against any compromise on healthcare at all:
"Just as Americans are beginning to more fully appreciate and more fully understand the colossal threat posed by Obamacare to the culture of life including a massive expansion of abortion and rationing for the sick and frail elderly, some in Congress are now trying to cobble together a phony "compromise" on abortion mandates, and abortion funding," the congressman began. "While we have yet to see the language, please beware."
See it doesn't really matter whether the President talks about the economy, healthcare or stem cell research, Smith turns it into an attack over abortion to fit his own agenda.
Promoted by Jason Springer: Chris Christie was in Cherry Hill today and Jay Lassiter, who dubbed himself the official welcome wagon head cheerleader was there to say hello.
Chris Christie and I crossed paths today at my local Jersey diner. Thankfully the encounter did not happen in the men's room.
P.S. Kim Guadagno was there too. She was pretty smooth with the crowd and and came off appealing. (just saying......)
"Mr. Obama is on his way to becoming the abortion president. Virtually everything he's done through executive order and through appointments and through other policies promote the killing of unborn children and the wounding of their mothers."
And in case the words aren't enough, here's the video:And this statement was after the murder of Dr. Tiller. How does this rhetoric promote their cause and advance the debate? So much for trying to find a common ground and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Chris Smith would rather lob rhetorical bombs apparently. Maybe it's just meant to stoke the flames of a certain segment of people. But if you're so pro-life and need to use rhetoric, why not condemn people trying to take the life of others because they don't agree with what they do, which is by the way legal under the law of the land.
The attorneys general of Connecticut and six other states filed suit in federal court Thursday seeking to block the implementation of a controversial Bush administration rule they say would limit women's access to contraceptives.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the regulation last month, saying it is needed to protect healthcare workers against discrimination by their employers if they decline to participate in abortions or other practices that violate their religious, moral or ethical beliefs.
This is what the Connecticut Attorney General had to say about why they filed the suit:
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) filed the lawsuit along with his counterparts in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island in U.S. district court in Connecticut. They seek an immediate injunction against HHS implementing and enforcing the regulation.
"On his way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking legal time bomb set to explode literally the same day of the Inaugural and blow apart vital constitutional rights and women's healthcare," Blumenthal said on a conference call with reporters.
And some of the problems people have with the new regulations:
Among opponents' numerous complaints about the regulation is that it does not explicitly define abortion, which they say could permit healthcare workers to deny birth control to women or even emergency contraceptive "morning-after pills" to rape victims.
They say the regulation is too broad and could be interpreted to apply to any employee at a medical facility, not just physicians, nurses and other practitioners.
In addition, opponents contend that these employees would not be required to refer patients to providers who would offer the relevant services and could even turn patients away without notifying their own supervisors.
If the regulation isn't blocked by the court, it would take effect tomorrow. In that case, the Obama Administration or Congress would have to make regulatory or legislative changes to the policy.
Herb Jackson is doing a series of Qs and As with Dennis Shulman and Rep. Scott Garrett on various issues. Here is part of Shulman's response regarding abortion.
My wife's an obstetrician-gynecologist. When she was in medical school ... there were still wards at the hospital at Columbia of women who were dying from illegal abortions. I think what people don't appreciate when they talk about the sacredness of life is that in any country where abortion is illegal we end up with women who die from illegal abortions. ... Abortion has to be discouraged, but it should never be made a constitutional amendment and never be made illegal.
The only place where I disagree is in tone, and not in substance. Abortion should be discouraged just as any surgery should be if it is not necessary, but the discouragement should be in the form of extended education of birth control options and not the shame right wingers want to use. It should be preventative as opposed to coercive.
Reducing abortion should be a goal, because it is a physical invasion of the body that can be prevented by preventing pregnancies. Too often when we hear "abortion should be discouraged" it means we should shame women into carrying through with an unwanted pregnancy, and that's not right.
This is amazing, and should be forwarded to all the wavering pro-choice Republicans out there.
John McCain mocks -- with air quotes and a sneer -- the idea that the health of the mother should be taken into consideration during emergencies involving pregnant women.
A few days ago, I introduced you all to New Jersey's 39th Legislative District, and why it matters to New Jersey and the country at large in 2007. You can read the article at http://www.bluejerse... . Today, I want to start tackling the opposition; for, even though NJ-39 has moved leftward, the incumbents have stayed on the far-right of the political spectrum. And that is especially true of Gerald "Gerry" Cardinale, the district's State Senator since 1981. In many ways, Cardinale is a New Jersey version of Mitch McConnell; arrogant, divisive, out of touch with political and social changes and blindly loyal to the special interests who back his campaigns. Cardinale's platform and values better echo 1907 than 2007, and today I'm going to show you why.
A doctor has no duty to tell a woman considering an abortion that her embryo is an "existing human being," a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
The 5-0 ruling scrapped the possibility of a trial touching on the question of when human life begins.
That's 5-0, by the way. Republicans and Democrats voted on that one. But there's more:
The decision, citing past rulings, said the court "will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public" on when life begins.
And that is the rub. The anti-abortion crowd will constantly run around and scream that there is scientific proof that life begins at conception, but they are unable to prove it using the scientific method. It is only through a severe and complete misunderstanding of what science and the scientific method are that can get a person to believe science can tell when life begins.
Many people say life begins at viability, when the fetus is capable of living outside the womb on its own for a significant period of time. Others say it begins at the quickening. Still others at the first heartbeat, and a rare few believe it begins at birth.
But these are definitions, not duplicable experiments. There has to be an experiment to challenge the idea (i.e., one that can fail) and it has to be repeatable. Then it goes through peer review and other people try to repeat the experiment. But there is no experiment to determine when life begins, and the mere fact of a scientist saying something doesn't mean it's scientific.
Now, there are issues at hand with this case, and I am not belittling the plaintiff's pain. She maintains she asked her doctor if her six week old fetus was a baby, and he said, "'Don't be stupid, it's only blood.'"
That makes him a crappy doctor, and in my opinion should be taken to the medical board for review of his medical knowledge. But it doesn't mean that every doctor has an obligation to inform pregnant women that a fetus is a full-fledged human being.
John McCain, campaigning in South Carolina, says that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and has pledged to appoint Supreme Court judges who will do just that. (Haven't we got enough of them already?)
That should dash McCain's hopes of winning the New Jersey primary--no matter which NJ pols are backing him--as long as the word gets out. Fortunately these days it's more difficult for politicians to say one thing in South Carolina and another in New Jersey.
And this guy tries to portray himself as a "moderate"!
Last week, New Jersey General Assemblyman Michael Carroll made Blue Jersey the topic of a blog post. Juan, in good humor, gave the Assemblyman the honor of the Quote of the Day. Of course, opposing blogs flaming each other is hardly anything new. But I wanted to take a moment and thank Assemblyman for actually going on the public record and for embracing blogging as a means of telling the public what he thinks. By way of thanks, I'd like to give him an answer to some of the questions he raises.
Mr. Carroll writes:
Anyone who unreservedly supports capital punishment needs professional help. That anyone would uncritically support empowering the same government which can’t count votes correctly, deliver mail timely, or provide a decent education economically, with the right to take a life, strikes me as outrageous.
I'm not sure I'd say people "need professional help" because they disagree with me politically. His anti-government screed, however, doesn't strike me as a compelling reason to disallow government the power to take the lives of its citizens. What happens if the government suddenly gets a vote count right (something it does regularly), delivers mail correctly and on time (something I rarely have a problem with), or that education can be delivered cheaply (something that has been done regularly up until the last twenty years or so)? Do we say, "Well, we reduced the cost of education, let's fire up the death machine!"?
I got an email from the Family Research Council Today and was surprised to see that their headliner was none other than our own homegrown nutjob Chris Smith. Tony Perkins touted Smith's reintroduction of the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act." Under the act, an embryo is described as a "pain capable unborn child" and requires abortion providers to inform the "mother" that the "unborn child" may experience pain. Smith also introduced this bill in September, but it never made it out of committee. This is a last ditch effort to get it passed before the dems have functional control. Since Smith is obviously a lost cause, perhaps those living in more moderate Republican districts can contact their Representative (e.g. Frelinghuysen) to urge them to oppose such measures.
Aronsohn seeking Internet buzz. That's the title of a Bergen Record article about a new online ad created by Paul Aronsohn's campaign.
The youtube ad highlights Congressman Scott Garrett's extremist views on abortion rights and will be emailed to all 14,000 New Jersey members of NARAL. This is the kind of targetting that the internet is incredibly useful for, and the hope is that those viewing the ad will forward the link on to like-minded friends. Garrett opposes a woman's right to choose even in the cases of rape or incest. The video shows Garrett speaking about Roe v Wade at a "March for Life" rally in January of this year:
"We want to shine the light of day on the truth of the terror that abortion is. Because we know that over 30 years ago a dark cloud spread across this nation. The dark cloud spread darkness in this nation and closed the eyes to the political leaders of this nation."
I was wondering if anyone was going to step up and run on an anti-abortion slate against Tom Kean Jr. and Bob Menendez -- both pro-choice -- for US Senate. From Inside Edge, it's happened:
Among the seven Independents running for the United States Senate in 2006 is 77-year-old N. Leonard Smith, who is running as the "Solidarity, Defend Life" candidate. Smith is no newcomer to New Jersey politics: he served as a Camden County Freeholder in the early 1960's and sought the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 1976 ...
This is bad news for Junior, as the pro-life crowd might have held their nose and voted his way without the option. But now they have a chance to make a statement with their vote, and they are pretty good at litmus test voting.
One of my favorite things to do with students in my Intro classes is to have them look at the Constitution and find some of the rights they think we are entitled to. The point is to show them that a strict literal reading of the Constitution would lead them all into territory they don't really want to contemplate. The right to own property? Doesn't exist. You have only the right to be compensated for property taken away. The right to get married and have children? It doesn't exist. The right to go to school doesn't exist. The right to lie in bed naked doesn't exist. The right to even have sex with someone doesn't exist.
So where does that leave the right to privacy?
When the framers of our Constitution began writing what would become the Bill of Rights, there were strenuous objections. Alexander Hamilton, for one, claimed that enumerating our rights would allow people to argue that only those rights that are enumerated should be protected. Jefferson and Madison disagreed, stating that some rights are so crucial that they must be placed above reproach.
