Thursday, March 11, 2010

Abortion and Obamacare

As Obamacare continues to flounder like a fish pulled onto dry land, it's important to see the issue that will ultimately (and hopefully IMO) kill this baby, pun intended. Abortion is the main issue (although increasing our deficit and creating a permanent welfare state should also be concerns, unless your the Democratic party and hope to maintain voter, sorry, welfare rolls).

Some claim the Senate bill doesn't actually provide abortion coverage, but instead places an optional opportunity that allows people to voluntarily join plans under which abortion can be covered. This is true, whereas the Stupak amendment does not allow this option in the House's version of the plan.

However, it's important to note that the issue those who are against abortion and against healthcare have is that money would be directed towards abortion. And it would be. Quibbling over whether its optional or not pushes the argument away from where it actually rests. My biggest problem with "Obamacare" as based on the Senate model is that federal funds (money contributed by taxpayers) could go towards a procedure that kills a life. End of story.

For more coverage on this issue and whether health care reform is actually dead, here are some stories from the past week:

An article on the Massachusetts Health Care reform signed by Mitt Romney, which does cover abortions.

An article or two on Stupak and his 10-12 members which could derail HCR.

And finally, failing a vote, whether the House can use legislative rules to bypass a vote actually on HCR and pull the wool over the public's eyes.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The Observer Messes Up Again

The Notre Dame community is on Spring Break this week and for the most part, that means we here at the Rover are too. However, with the Observer folksies messing up and yet more media attention being bestowed on that venerable publication, its hard not to put something out there.

Quick summary. Professor Charles Rice has published a biweekly column in the Observer for over fifteen years. He chooses his own topics, submits them, and they are edited by the Observer (usually for length). Professor Rice's latest column (which I have not yet read) apparently dealt with the Church's position on homosexuality. However this didn't match with the Observer's interpretation of that stance, oh and it ran shorter than his earlier columns but was still too long. So they said, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Thus we see here several things:
1. The new staff apparently wanted to emulate the last board in creating controversy as soon as possible.
2. The new staff doesn't want to seem to mean to homosexuals (especially after supporting in an editorial the addition of this group to the discrimination clause at Notre Dame).
3. The new staff would rather seem mean to conservative, Catholic professors who are known throughout the US than offend homosexuals by publishing his mean words.

At-a-boys all around. Please use my $20 yearly subscription, as included in my tuition, to have a great Observer party once we all come back from break. Remember, the only good bias is your own. ;)

More coverage here and here:
Bill Dempsey in The Washington Times
Mike Adams online at Townhall