httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hX_9OSEo80
Today, Americans United for Life’s legislative action arm, AUL Action is giving America a much-needed reality check with a new online ad that dispels the deceptive rhetoric of pro-abortion politicians and gives a clear case for how taxpayer dollars will go to funding abortions in health care reform.
The new online video ad, “Don’t Be Fooled: Abortion is in Health Care Reform,” is a part of “Real Health Care Respects Life,” our initiative to mobilize pro-life opposition nationwide to abortion in health care reform. AULA’s health care website is located at RealHealthCareRespestsLife.com.
By the way, Americans United for Life Action met with the White House last month regarding concerns about abortion in health care reform. AUL is also the organization that defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Whats laughable is your inability to defend your own stances. Attacking the beliefs of a commentor and not the comments is bush league.
Your appeal to “neutrality” and freedom from dogma is laughable. Appealing to the Performance Institute and its grounding in the Enlightenment, systems theory, and “efficiency” as a credible, religiously neutral authority is breathtaking.
Who is being the passive aggressive bully when some anonymous commenter refuses to be honest about his assumptions?
Besides, everyone knows, The Left itself, grounded in Dialectical Materialism, proudly accepts it is “on the March” as a given. Why ding the Heritage Institute for pointing this out?
Heritage has the answers.*
To be honest, I trust numbers, empirical data such as public records, statistics, etc.
I am a fan of a few think tanks, such as Performance Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Performance_Institute
No one reacts well to internet bullies, BGR. I understand this is your playground and I play by your rules, but I have in no way meant to insult you or anyone else. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
Let me quote the Heritage home page-
“The left is on the march.
Heritage has answers.”
http://www.heritage.org/
I think that explains my point pretty clearly. I do not follow any dogma, ideology, or political party, they all seem equally worthless.
Do you have anything more than vague innuendo about my political leanings?
No. Seriously. Tell us now what authorities you will or not accept up front. It’s an honest question that you begged when you played the bias card as if you are neutral and not partisan. Fess up, kiddo.
sarcasm gets you no where, Mr. BGR.
OK, so let us know what sources are OK with you the next time so we don’t run afoul of any bias like the one that derisively compares Heritage to DailyKos. We also published verbatim the letter from Bishops as primary source. I hope this is OK.
That’s a very loaded question.
I’m curious, where have I been biased?
I would hope that you and others would hold organizations to a higher level than opinion sections, which comment sections are related…
It’s about time the bishops know whats in the wind. I respect their leadership and it’s “human rights” concerns, but I am not a supporter of the hyde or any attempt to walk a similar line. I believe such action penalize the poor and those in need of support the most.
we both know Kennedy-Dodd health care bill will be the one changed the most when the bills are combined. It is also the only example used by Heritage.
Not “incorrect” but diffently misleading to those who don’t understand the process.
using heritage text is like me quoting the Dailykos, it isn’t kosher.
I believe the Bishops know which way the wind is blowing.
If you find any factual error in the Heritage analysis please let us know.
BTW, Why are you allowed to be biased but no one else is?
Can Heritage really be thought of as “unbiased”?
My point about asking about the bills was there is no bill yet, no final form.
Which version of the which bill? I don’t know anyone that’s seen it or read them, do you? The Catholic Bishops are lodging their complaint based on White House discussions and promises that were given and from their take on current progress of the five bills toward reconciliation (post votes on Hyde and Capps’ and other amendments).
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/upload/HealthcareltrCongress10809.pdf
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/17/taxpayer-funding-for-abortion-another-sleeper-issue-in-health-care-reform/
Clearly what Obama promises and what happens are two different realities. And yes, it’s a shame the rights of children in the womb—who’s mothers otherwise would possibly receive federally funded subsidies for prenatal care—cannot be better protected. Tough issue. But the point is what was promised in private meetings and in public in Obama’s speech last month prior to Joe Wilson’s outburst.
I’m curious, what bill are you reading from, which of the five? or is it all five? Can you link to the section of the bill that allows for abortion funding?
The Hyde Amendment only blocks appropriations from the HHS budget, Whatever the bill is named will not come from the HHS budget so the Hyde Amendment is going to be moot here. Furthermore, Hyde has allowed for spending on abortions in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant woman, since the late 70’s.
Personally I believe in liberty, not just for me, but for all my fellow Americans. I do not believe the government can/should/nor want to control the body of sovereign citizens. There has been no greater threat to liberty than that of a moral Minority/majority.
Sorry. It was not a comparison but an analogy to describe a logical error that wrongly declares all of some larger class (all Catholic priests or NFL Teams) are equally as bad as some smaller nth sample of the class (pedophile priests and Raiders. So please calmly step away from the ledge of your high moral dudgeon and come back into the room. And close the window, it’s cold out there.
The defense of children has nothing to do with football. How you can even make that comparison is weird. There will be a special place in hell for all of those priests who sexually attacked those children and the bishops who covered the crime up for years.
“Raiders and Niners suck?” get real you are just upset that Pittsburgh is 3 and 2 like the Niners. (but we do agree that the Raiders stink.)
How is that not like condemning all football teams just because the Raiders and Niners suck? Geez. Talk about all or nothing thinking. Take your meds and relax. Enjoy the gray and complexity of tough questions in our society.
Too bad those priests in the other picture were not as concerned for the living children while the molesters in their ranks were attacking them and they are for the potential lives of the unborn. They make me ill.
We seriously disagree on the issue of approach here in the framing of things. Frankly I do not care if Abortion was covered, but that is a separate argument on the relationships and perceptions of the poor/abortion issue etc. Have never seen a camel in a tent by the way.
Edi, your response is naive or disingenuous or both. Something about a camel’s nose. The specific tactic is to have vague language to leave the back door open so that abortion is covered. That you would offer such a fig leaf is laughable.
Just because there is no explicit prohibition does not mean that there is an explicit support. Ads like this make me want to make sure that there are explicit support for mental health.