If You see, Who's Wrong ?

She was so arresting turns out, however she is stunning. If you do not believe take a look at some photos below.

New Obamacare Regulation Violates Hyde Amendment

Priests for Life 

Remarks by Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04)

Press Conference at House Triangle

March 21, 2012


Abortion is NOT health care. That’s what we said over and over again during the debate over the new health care law. There is nothing benign or compassionate about brutally taking the life of an unborn child through dismemberment or chemical poisoning. Yet our pleas fell on deaf ears. The President would like the American public to believe that his health care overhaul does not subsidize and facilitate the preventable tragedy of abortion, but his actions paint quite another picture.

Last week while the House of Representatives was out of session, the mass deception of the Obama 2010 Executive Order was finally exposed.

On March 24, 2010, President Obama said in his Executive Order (#13535) "Ensuring Enforcement and Implementation of Abortion Restrictions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", "the Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges." The President’s Executive Order said that, but now we know for certain that what it does and the new rule announced last week is entirely different.

At its core the Hyde amendment has TWO parts. It prohibits funding for abortion AND funding for insurance plans that include abortion. This is the fundamental reality of longstanding federal law: taxpayer dollars DO NOT subsidize abortion plans that include elective abortion.

Now, under Obamacare, taxpayers subsidies in the form of refundable, advanceable credits paid directly to the insurance company will subsidize insurance plans offered on the exchange that include abortion on demand—even late term abortion. Obamacare further breaks with longstanding law by establishing a new abortion surcharge and secrecy clause.

Bottom line, the Executive Order and new rule implements the same accounting gimmick, abortion surcharge and secrecy clause that was in the original text of the bill. We knew it at the time, and the final "exchange" rule confirms once again that the President was suggesting one thing while doing precisely the opposite.

Obamacare creates an unprecedented labyrinth of accounting gimmicks designed to hide the truth that the massive new health care program breaks with longstanding federal laws like the Hyde amendment and the Smith amendment.

In 1983 I successfully offered an amendment to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the federal employee health benefits program. My amendment, in effect today, ensures that, like the Hyde Amendment, there is no funding for abortion or "the administrative expenses in connection with any health plan" that provides "benefits or coverage for abortion."

Under this scheme, premium payers will pay President Obama’s abortion surcharge of–maybe more, but at least—one dollar per month. This separate charge will go directly into an abortion-on-demand fund established by Obamacare. Requiring the segregation of funds into allocation accounts—a mere bookkeeping exercise is a cheap political trick designed to circumvent longstanding prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion like the Hyde amendment and the Smith amendment.

The rule also contains a secrecy clause specifying that the abortion surcharge cannot be itemized in marketing materials, and may "only" be disclosed "as a part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment." This secrecy clause requires insurance companies to bury the abortion surcharge in the summary of benefits so Americans shopping for an insurance plan on the exchange won’t know about the abortion surcharge until they sign up for coverage—and even then they could easily miss the fine print. Undoubtedly many enrollees will be shocked when they get a bill for the Obama abortion surcharge. Once enrolled, even pro-life Americans will be forced to pay for other people’s abortions.

There is no funding for insurance plans that cover abortion and there are no accounting gimmicks in the Hyde amendment or the Smith Amendment. And, there is NO abortion surcharge and there is NO secrecy clause. Both of these longstanding policies explicitly prohibit coverage for abortion in the federal programs they cover, but President Obama refused to apply the same policy to Obamacare.

That’s why the House has passed THREE bills to overturn this attack on longstanding policies:

* On January 19, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2, to repeal Obamacare by a bipartisan vote of 245-189. The President threatened a veto and the Senate defeated a similar provision by a partisan vote of 47-53.

* On May 4, 2011, the House passed Smith’s bill, H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" by a bipartisan vote of 251-175. The President threatened a veto and the Senate has taken no action.

* On October 13, 2011, the House passed H.R. 358, the "Protect Life Act" by a bipartisan vote of 251-172. The President threatened a veto and the Senate has taken no action.

Abortion isn’t health care. We live in an age of ultrasound imaging—the ultimate window to the womb. We are in the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign innovative interventions designed to diagnose, treat and cure disease or illness any unborn child may be suffering. Obamacare should do them no harm. Tragically, it does the worst harm of all. It kills children and makes others complicit in abortion.

US bishops urge Congress to 'fix' problems in health care law

Catholic News Agency Washington D.C., Jun 28, 2012 / 05:03 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has renewed its call for Congress to correct problems within the 2010 health care law, now that the legislation has been upheld by the nation’s highest court.
The conference said that it did not join in “efforts to repeal the law in its entirety” after it was passed in 2010 and added that “we do not do so today.”
However, it argued, the Affordable Care Act contains “fundamental flaws” that were not addressed by the Supreme Court’s decision. Further legislation is necessary to fix the law’s problems with abortion funding, conscience protection and treatment of immigrants, the group said.
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including an individual mandate that requires virtually all people to buy health insurance. The court ruled by a vote of 5-4 that this mandate does not fall within the acceptable range of Congressional power under the commerce clause, but it can stand instead as a valid tax on those who refuse to buy insurance.
In its statement shortly after the decision was announced, the bishops’ conference noted that for almost 100 years, the Catholic bishops have been advocating “for comprehensive health care reform to ensure access to life-affirming health care for all, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable.”
The group explained that while it did not participate in the case before the Supreme Court and “took no position on the specific questions presented to the Court,” it had opposed the final passage of the Affordable Care Act for several reasons.
First, it said, the law contradicts “longstanding federal policy” by allowing “federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions.”
Pro-life advocates have objected to the “abortion surcharge” that is required for all people enrolled in plans covering elective abortions. This surcharge must be at least one dollar per month, but can be significantly higher than this, as there is no maximum rate.
Furthermore, the bishops’ conference said, the law fails to “provide essential conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context.”
It pointed to the “preventive services” mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. That mandate, announced by the Department of Health and Human Services, will require employers to offer health insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and early abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.
Bishops from every diocese in the U.S. have joined those of various religious political and religious backgrounds in speaking out against the mandate, warning that it poses a severe threat to religious liberty and could force Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations to shut their doors rather than compromise their beliefs.
More than 50 plaintiffs from across the country – including numerous Catholic dioceses – are currently challenging the mandate. Those lawsuits were not within the range of questions considered by the court on June 28, so they are not affected by the court’s ruling and will continue moving forward in the judiciary system.
In addition, the bishops’ conference warned, the Affordable Care Act is unfair to immigrant workers and their families, leaving them “worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money.”
This contradicts the law’s stated purpose of offering access of basic health care to all people, especially the most needy, the group said.
“The decision of the Supreme Court neither diminishes the moral imperative to ensure decent health care for all, nor eliminates the need to correct the fundamental flaws described above,” it emphasized.
Stressing both of these moral obligations, the bishops’ conference urged “Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, legislation to fix those flaws” that remain in the law.

Today's SCOTUS Decision Dooms Obama's Reelection

Breitbart
Yes, Obama and the Democrats are entitled to a bit of a victory lap today, after Chief Justice Roberts searched deeply within his political self and found a path to uphold ObamaCare. Sure, the individual mandate was unconstitutional on the two arguments made by the Obama Administration. But, on the argument they expressly didn't make--that the mandate was really a tax--the Court decided that Congress was well within its power to enact the provision. So, its still the law of the land. But, today's ruling will probably go down in history as the most effective GOP voter turnout operation ever. There is only one way to repeal ObamaCare and that is through the ballot box. It will happen. During the debates over ObamaCare, the President and Democrats strained themselves to argue that the individual mandate wasn't a tax. Obama himself had campaigned on a promise to never raise taxes on any families earning less than $250,000 a year. Today, the Court called the mandate for what it is...a tax. In doing so, it acknowledged that, not only did Obama break his campaign promise, but he and his leftist allies have ushered in the largest tax hike in history. They will go with that record into the voting booth in November.
From a nakedly partisan viewpoint, today's ruling is the best case scenario for the GOP. ObamaCare is still deeply unpopular and now the only way to undo it is to sweep Obama and dozens of Democrats out of office. The GOP base will speed up its rallying to Romney, because it is their only chance to repeal this monstrosity. Independents, who have been peppered with silly social issue memes from the media, will put all of that aside to ensure that ObamaCare is repealed.
Many of my colleagues are understandably upset with Chief Justice Roberts. But, he may have pulled off the ultimate Jedi Knight mind trick. He upheld the law by framing it as a tax, which runs counter to Obama's campaign promises. His opinion even provides a legal basis to restrain future federal power grabs. Moreover, he has ensured that the only way to appeal the law is to prevail, across the board, in November. That was ultimately always the case. But that awareness was implied. Now it is explicit. We have to run the tables in November to have any hope of maintaining our liberty. There is great clarity in knowing the stakes of a fight. Thanks to today's ruling, we have that now.
Patriots around the country will now realize that there is no cavalry on the horizon. If we want to preserve our liberties, we will have to fight for it. Patriots and Independents now have a singular reason to show up at the polls in November. This focus will doom Obama's reelection campaign.
Today, I donated to a congressional candidate who is committed to repealing ObamaCare. What did you do?

Ken Cuccinelli, on second thought, likes Supreme Court health-care decision

The Washington Post

 

CNN and Fox News aren’t the only ones doing a 180 on the Supreme Court ruling.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R)         Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), the first attorney general in the nation to file a lawsuit over President Obama’s health-care overhaul, said the sky was pretty much falling in a news release issued half an hour after the court upheld the law.
“This is a dark day for the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law,” Cuccinelli said in the release. “This is a dark day for American liberty.”
By the time he held a news conference an hour and 45 minutes later, Cuccinelli had different take: “It’s mostly sunny.”
The reason? His first impression was based on the basic upshot of the ruling: The court had upheld “Obamacare.” His second was based on a closer look at the ruling, which he found upheld individual liberty and curbed federal power even as it left the law in place.
The court ruled that Americans could be required to secure health insurance, but under Congress’s taxing authority, not under the Constitution’s commerce clause. That means the “individual mandate” has been deemed a tax — a tax Cuccinelli still finds objectionable as a matter of policy, but not one that raises Constitutional questions about compelling people to buy something against their will.
The court also ruled that the government cannot withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that opt against a big expansion of Medicaid eligibility.
“I’m more of an idealist than most people,” Cuccinelli said. “I look at a lot of the long term, foundational first principles pieces of this and on that we did very well. But the first blush is, ‘Is the law up or down?’ And the way they kept it up was frankly a bit surprising.
“They preserved our first principles protections, our individual liberty protections. They advanced state sovereignty, strangely enough, while keeping the law. That was not one of the combinations that were even in our top five. That permutation was one that we didn’t spend a lot of time thinking was a likely outcome. But here we are. That’s the one we’ve got.”
“They’ve turned this whole thing into a spending and regulation question with this ruling. The individual liberty pieces were preserved and states got strengthened here in the constitutional structure under this ruling.”

Only the beginning

The recent marches around the world to protest government and bank corruption were just the beginning of something that must grow over time.
.
How it will manifest and express itself is not easy to see today.
.
That it will do so is inevitable.
.
People whose lives have been ruined by governments, special interest groups and bankers.
.
As one such, Nicla Crippa, 49, said: We can’t carry on any more with public debt that wasn’t created by us but by thieving governments, corrupt banks and speculators who don’t give a damn about us.
.
They caused this international crisis and are still profiting from it.

.
They should pay for it.
.
The protest along with those of the so called Arab Spring are indications of a wider part of humanity waking to demand justice.
.
Venting anger over years of economic and financial crisis since a global credit boom went bust in 2007.
.
Tens of thousands, nicknamed “the indignant”, marched in major cities across Europe.
.
As protests that began in New York linked up with long-running demonstrations against unpopular government cost-cutting and failed financial policies in Europe.
.
Notice how certain items get news time and others are ignored.
.
Notice how few politicians ''get it''
.
Notice how politicians are still talking about growth.
.
About fixing the economy.
.
About bailing out the banks.
.
Are they on a different planet?
.
The world economic model is broken.
.
The model of positive interest and endless growth is over.
.
But because of the special interest groups and the bankers this scenario will play and play.
.
Governments continuing to lie.
.
Bankers continuing to grasp.
.
The longer they ignore the increasing anger of people around the world the harder the violence to come.
.
When and how we cannot see today however come it must.
.
Why must it come?
.
When I have nothing to lose.
.
When I have no hope.
.
When I have no food or clean water.
.
When I see those who have so much.
.
This lights a fuse.
.
The fuse was lit last year.

What Did SCOTUS Just Do?

The Weekly Standard
Was today's Supreme Court Obamacare decision a win for conservatives or a loss? It depends on what you were rooting for.
If you were above all interested in the bill being struck down, it was mostly a loss. On the other hand, if you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.
First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.
Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.
Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.
Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.
If Obama loses in November, that is...