May 25, 1738: Ending of the Conojocular War

Wednesday, May 25, AD 2016

300px-Cresapwarmap

Boundary disputes were quite common between the colonies, but few got as violent as the boundary line war between Pennsylvania and Maryland from 1730-1738.  Pennsylvania’s charter (1681) provided for its southern boundary as follows:  “on the South by a Circle drawne at twelve miles’ distance from New Castle Northward and Westward unto the beginning of the fortieth degree of Northern Latitude, and then by a streight Line Westward”.  Subsequent surveys established that Dover was a full twenty-five miles south of the 40th Parallel.  Maryland insisted on the 40th Parallel which would have made Philadelphia a Maryland town.  Pennsylvania pushed for a boundary at 39 degrees, 36 minutes which would have taken a strip out of what is northern Maryland.  The dispute simmered for decades breaking out into open conflict in the 1730s with the settlement of the Conejohela Valley west of the  Susquehanna River.  Maryland and Pennsylvania settlers in the disputed territory quickly came into conflict with raids and counter raids by the militias of the two colonies.  The leader of the Maryland settlers was Thomas Cresap, a tough and fearless man as the French would later have reason to attest during the French and Indian War.  Cresap was captured by the Pennsylvanians.  Upon being paraded through the streets of Philadelphia prior to being imprisoned, Cresap remarked:   “Damn it, this is one of the prettiest towns in Maryland!”.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to May 25, 1738: Ending of the Conojocular War

  • If only they’d been able to draw the map along 39′ 36″ with Maryland also getting Philadelphia. Pennsylvania would have won completely.

  • This was something I did not know about my home Commonwealth.

    Another struggle took place between Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Connecticut claimed land south of New York, stretching across the continent. Connecticut residents settled around Wilkes Barre and made their demands. The Yankee-Pennonite Wars ensued, and Connecticut was forced to surrender her claims to what is now the northern half of Pennsylvania. Connecticut did not surrender her claim west of Pennsylvania until Ohio became a state. The northeastern corridor of Ohio was once known as the Western Reserve. The rest of Ohio was claimed by Virginia. This name carries over in Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and Western Reserve Academy in Hudson.

    Pennsylvania received a bit of New York so as to have access to Lake Erie.

    The most well known squabble was between Virginia and Pennsylvania over The Forks. George Washington and Edward Braddock failed in their missions from Virginia to get France to surrender Fort Duquesne. Colonel Henry Bouquet led an expedition from Fort Bedford, carving out the Forbes Road, and the French fled before his arrival.

    Virginia and Pennsylvania both wanted the Forks. George Washington owned land in my township, South Fayette. In the end, Pennsylvania won out…..and, thus, Pittsburgh became a city of Pennsylvania, not an outpost of Williamsburg.

  • Maryland can have Philadelphia. So can New Jersey. Really. We don’t want it anymore.

  • Exciting time to be a Penguins fan!

  • It is indeed, Pinky.

    As Mr. McClarey is to science fiction, my house is to hockey.

  • My favorite part of all of this is The Wedge, an area in between Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware that was not in any of the three colonies. Giving land to multiple colonies, that is just good politics. Giving land to none, that is just a waste.

HHS Statement on Abortion Funding

Thursday, July 15, AD 2010

The Department of Health and Human Services has released the following statement regarding allegations that newly approved Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans would cover abortions:

As is the case with FEHB plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President’s related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.

Our policy is the same for both state and federally-run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.

Continue reading...

0 Responses to HHS Statement on Abortion Funding

  • A case of “he says, she says”? Who’s right?

  • “The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

    “The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we’ve discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states. “This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama’s assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion — but it will not be the last.”

    An earlier version of the health care legislation, passed by the House of Representatives in November 2009, contained a provision (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) that would have prevented federal funds from subsidizing abortion or insurance coverage of abortion in any of the programs created by the bill, including the high-risk pool program. But President Obama opposed that pro-life provision, and it was not included in the bill later approved by both houses and signed into law. An executive order signed by the President on March 24, 2010 did not contain effective barriers to federal funding of abortion, and did not even mention the high-risk pool program.

    “President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention,” Johnson said.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has emphasized that the high-risk pool program is a federal program and that the states will not incur any cost. On May 11, 2010, in a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on implementation of the new law, DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that “states may choose whether and how they participate in the program, which is funded entirely by the federal government.”

    Details of the high-risk pool plans for most states are not yet available. But on June 28, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario (a member of the appointed cabinet of Governor Edward Rendell, a Democrat) issued a press release announcing that the federal Department of Health and Human Services had approved his agency’s proposal for implementing the new program in Pennsylvania. “The state will receive $160 million to set up the program, which will provide coverage to as many as 5,600 people between now and 2014,” according to the release. “The plan’s benefit package will include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, prescription medications and much more, with subsidized premiums of $283 a month.”

    Examination of the detailed Pennsylvania plan, reveals that the “much more” will include insurance coverage of any legal abortion.

    The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that “elective abortions are not covered.” However, that statement proves to be a red herring, because the operative language does not define “elective.” Rather, the proposal specifies that the coverage “includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of” several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is “necessary” based on “all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.” Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: “No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.”

    As a result, “Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection,” said NRLC’s Johnson. “The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection — and the Obama Administration has now approved this.”

  • I disagree. I think the assumption should remain that abortion is being funded and that the Administration should be forced to affirmatively show that abortion is NOT being funded EVERY TIME one of these funding decisions is made.

    They are the ones who fought the inclusion of the Stupak language, and the burden of proof, therefore, remains with them on a case-by-case basis to show that federal funds are not being expended on abortion.

    I’m not worried about crying wolf because (a) because I don’t believe for one minute the Administration’s protestations that abortions aren’t being funded and (b) every time the Administration has to issue one of these denials it reinforces in the mind of the public that federal funding of abortion is taboo.

  • It seems from Donald’s link that abortions are being funded – and not just those allowed by the Hyde Amendment. Is what NRLC is reporting false?

  • The problem I have with HHS is that they don’t state where the prohibition occurs. The EO is useless in the face of the actual law. Which is why I’ve asked defenders to point out where in the federal law the funds are prohibited from funding abortions.

  • It looks like this is a case of crying wolf, and if it is, it discredits the pro-life movement. We can’t afford to look foolish. What scares me is that the administration’s defenders are replying that (a) no money will go to abortion, (b) it’s not much money anyway, and (c) the program will do a lot of good. I don’t see a reason to make the last two points, unless the arguments are being field-tested for future use.

  • At least some money will be going to fund abortionsw if it pays for abortions in cases of “rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.” Even though these are in the Hyde Amendment, they are contrary to Catholic moral teaching. They were put into the Hyde Amendment to ensure passage – an acceptable political move if complete prohibition would have stopped passage.

    The question here is, even using the Amendment, is there a net increase in the killing of babies even if only for these politically accepted reasons? If so then Obamacare does increase abortions.

    The next question is, if there is an increase in abortions, did the provision of health care to more individuals justify this increase in abortions?

  • July 14, 2010

    The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

    Washington, D.C. 20201

    Dear Secretary Sebelius:

    We have recently learned that the Pennsylvania application to administer a federally subsidized Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (also referred to as a high-risk pool) for individuals with pre-existing conditions contains a provision that allows federal funding for abortion in virtually any case except sex-selective abortion. Similarly, we understand that a draft summary of benefits for New Mexico’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan explicitly lists elective abortion as a covered, and therefore subsidized, service.

    Both of these cases will result in funding for abortion in direct contradiction of longstanding U.S. policy against federal funding of abortion or abortion coverage. Unfortunately, statutory language prohibiting such funding was not included in the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Instead of a statutory prohibition, the President assured Members of Congress by signing an Executive Order that claimed to ensure that abortion would not be funded under the authorities and appropriations provided in PPACA. However, further details regarding how this assurance would be implemented and enforced have not been released.

    In light of the newly discovered information about the Pennsylvania and New Mexico Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans and the paramount importance of this issue, we would request the following information no later than close of business Friday, July 16, 2010.

    1. A list of all states and the District of Columbia that plan to administer federally funded high-risk pools at the state level, including the following for each:

    a. whether an application has been submitted,

    b. whether an application has been approved, and

    c. a copy of any application that has been either submitted or approved.

    2. According to the HHS website (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/initiative/), “HHS has contracted with the Government Employees Health Association (GEHA) to administer the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan” that will provide high-risk insurance to individuals in 21 states. Please provide a list of the states that have indicated they intend to opt into the GEHA program rather than establish their own state program, and a copy of the complete contract with GEHA including any language regarding abortion.

    We look forward to your prompt response.

    Sincerely,

    [Signed by John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Joe Barton, Darrell Issa, Chris Smith, and Joe Pitts]

  • The PA plan states it will not cover “elective abortions.” What abortions fit the requirements? According to 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204:

    “In determining in accordance with subsection (a) or (b) whether an abortion is necessary, a physician’s best clinical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age) relevant to the well-being of the woman. No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.”

    Why did administration officials not ask that this be changed when the PA plan was approved? Did someone in the govt. just not read it? And if, according to state and Federal officials, Federal law will take priority, will they go back and change it?

  • Another update. Perhaps there is also problems with New Mexico’s plan and the Executive Order may not cover high-risk pools:

    http://lifenews.com/nat6540.html

  • From Life News:

    “Meanwhile, Bakus claimed the state web sites containing information about the high risk pools, that provided the information NRLC used to verify the abortion funding, will be updated in the next couple of weeks to show they will not fund elective abortions.

    “If HHS does now issue new directives to keep abortion out of this particular program, it will be because NRLC blew the whistle on them,” Johnson said. “The Obama Administration shows a pattern of relentlessly pushing pro-abortion policies through the federal agencies and on Capitol Hill, whenever they think they can do so under the public radar — and then scurrying for cover when the spotlight comes on.”

    That both states reported they would cover elective abortions is not a dispute, although both appear to be backtracking after Right to Life uncovered the abortion funding.

    The Associated Press reported Wednesday that New Mexico “initially listed elective abortion as a covered benefit” but then “reversed course” after AP inquired about the coverage NRLC discovered.

    Michelle Lujan Grisham, deputy director of the New Mexico Medical Insurance Pool, told AP that the state’s contract with HHS stipulated the plan must follow federal law but did not spell out details on limits to abortion coverage.

    “As a result, New Mexico included elective abortion as a covered benefit, following what it was already doing with its own state health programs,” AP indicated.

    NRLC identified how the Internet site describing the New Mexico plan listed “elective termination of pregnancy” as a covered benefit and noting how it would pay for 80 percent of the cost of the abortion after the insured woman met the $500 deductible.

    Grisham initially told AP the state would follow through on that plan but then called the news outlet back later Wednesday saying otherwise: “We are in the process of correcting the package so it will not have elective abortion coverage.”

    Pennsylvania officials are backtracing as well, with Rosanne Placey, a spokeswoman for the state insurance department, telling AP the high risk pool will now not cover elective abortions: “That is not part of the benefit package.”

    Backus also said the Obama administration would ensure any abortion coverage under the new national health care program would be limited to cases when the mother’s life is in danger or rape and incest — which the Hyde Amendment limits funding of abortions to regarding other funding from the federal government, but which does not apply to the new health care law.

    Johnson ultimately told LifeNews.com: “I can and have been asked, can the Administration be trusted? Sure, they can be trusted — to try to expand federal support for abortion every sneaky chance they get.”

    “Everybody needs to constantly watch what people in this Administration are doing, not what they are saying,” he concluded.”

    http://lifenews.com/nat6540.html

  • Pingback: Rampant Dishonesty Continues « Vox Nova
  • Who are these people suddenly worried about “crying wolf” and being labelled as “crying wolf”? The bishops along with every other group concerned about murder said abortion was covered under this law. Independent news reports verify that until yesterday when prolifers made a cry (of wolf (Ha Ha)) abortion was on the website as covered.

    “But at least one state — New Mexico — initially listed elective abortion as a covered benefit, reversing course after The Associated Press inquired on Wednesday.”

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700048295/More-questions-on-health-plan-abortion.html?s_cid=rss-5

    These WOLVES need to worry about their credibility before GOD and what eternal damnation feels like not to mention what an aborted baby feels–and her mom and dad when they wake up to what they did–and stop throwing up RED HERRINGS. Whose paying you–CHA?

  • It seems on one of the threads over at Vox Nova they have stopped anyone commenting on how the Hyde Amendment results in more abortions under Health Care Reform. No refutaion of the argument, just prohibting comments on it. Now it couldn’t be because people are right?

    http://vox-nova.com/2010/07/15/rampant-dishonesty-continues/#comments

  • Rampant Dishonesty Continues « Vox Nova says:
    Thursday, July 15, 2010 A.D. at 12:06 pm

    Somebody please read our blog. Somebody. Please. Hello?

  • For programs such as Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs that are jointly funded by the states and federal government, each state has to draw up a set of rules that specify who is covered, for what procedures/treatments and under what conditions. These rules are called “State Plans.”

    All State Plans, and any significant changes made to a State Plan, must be approved by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is a division of HHS. As long as a State Plan doesn’t directly conflict with federal law, it is usually approved, so states do have some discretion.

    State Plan amendments also normally have to go through a period of review and public comment at the state level — this varies depending on each state’s administrative law — before they can be adopted as well.

    Apparently, these federally subsidized high risk insurance pools MAY operate in a similar manner. If that is the case, when each state draws up its plan, it will be done in the form of rules promulgated by the agency that administers the plan in each state. In most states, that includes some kind of public comment period, and if they know they are going to get a lot of negative public comment, they can usually be persuaded to backtrack on those rules.

  • Read this op-ed by Helen Alvare, one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I know – http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/07/1423

  • Just an update. It seems NPR believes that neither the health care law nor the Executive Order prohibits abortion funding for high risk pools. Also seems, per NPR, that New Mexico was already using Federal funds for elective abortions in their high risk pool.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/07/15/128546416/abortion-supporters-now-blast-adminstration-over-health-law

Surprise! ObamaCare is Going to Pay for Abortions

Wednesday, July 14, AD 2010

In a completely predictable move, ObamaCare will pay for abortions.  Lifesite News is on the story:

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Surprise! ObamaCare is Going to Pay for Abortions

  • So, his response to “recycled scare tactics” is recycled excuses?

  • The abortion catholics that voted for Obama are worse than hitler.

  • The abortion catholics that voted for Obama are worse than hitler.

    I’m unclear how “gullible” or “self-deluded” or “making poor moral/political judgments” translates to “worse than hitler”. Such uses of polemic rob history of any meaning.

  • Here endeth mention of Hitler in this thread.

  • What about Himmler? Can I mention Himmler?

  • How about “worse than the people who elected” the person who is not to be named in this thread?

    And while it may be charitable to mark up the support for Obama by the “abortion catholics” to their being gullible, self-deluded, or having made poor moral/political judgments, I think it is probably more the case that they just don’t give a rat’s @$$ about abortion when weighed in the balance against all the other leftist goodies that the Democrat Party has on offer.

  • lol, Blackadder.

  • “I think it is probably more the case that they just don’t give a rat’s @$$ about abortion when weighed in the balance against all the other leftist goodies that the Democrat Party has on offer.”

    Bingo

    “What about Himmler? Can I mention Himmler?”

    No, nor any other members of the Third Reich. This is a Nazi free thread. 🙂

  • Bart who? Oh yeah, that congresscritter from Michigan. I thought he was already residing in the Where Are They Now File. Looks like all he got for his allegedly historic compromise was 15 minutes of fame and an early retirement.

  • For the life of me, i can not understand why this informatiion suprises anyone now, we all knew what was going to happen when the so called compromise was made. Our President modus operani has always been to appease someone with a promise and then make a political move. Like he promised the Seniors that they would have more coverage and better medical care because of his health bil and would not get hurt. What a joke and AARP bought it and they can say goodbye to mnay members. Wait til the Seniors find out how badly they have been had. The wanted change and boy are they going to get it.

  • Jill Stanek has good coverage linked below:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/obamacare-to-fund-abortions-in.html

  • The really sickening thing about this is to realize it could have all been avoided had a good portion of misled “Social Justice” Catholics and the USCCB who were more dedicated to political correctness than Biblical truth and more fearful of Federal lawmakers than the voices of their flocks. And in particular one Doug Kemeic, (now Obama’s appointed ambassador to Malta) who used his status as and elitist in catholic doctrine to conger a guilt complex on any of the faithful who would waste a chance to vote for a minority president regardless of his lack of experience or his vague past and highly questionable background and associations.
    There were many prominent catholic leaders who were duped either by the Obama media or their own shallow catholicity who joined the false Hope and Change brigade in some sort of self chastisement to relieve or remove a dark shadow they believed existed within their conscience. The accolades and support filled the catholic media and were hand picked to blast all over the mainstream press and television. But none more so than (Ambassador) Doug Kemeic who just could not heap enough praise on the anointed One or criticize and admonish Catholics who took pause to question his credentials or values.

    I write for any and all the Church’s faithful who remember this and feel the betrayal imposed on us as our nation slips deeper into the culture of death and corruption.

  • I just want to know how I can ensure that when I pay my taxes – my section of that money does not go to that funding… If I can’t how can I even justify paying my taxes at all?

    Side note (No member of a Socialist Party in Germany during WWII was harmed during the making of this comment)

  • We need to take a whole life approach to health care which looks out for those who are out of the womb as well as those in the womb.

    Really, we should all take these wise words to heart. How many Catholics do you know who claim to be pro-life and yet neglect provide food and shelter for their children? If you’re like me, the answer is “a whole lot.” I forget how many kids I have because they’ve all been born already, but the other day one of the younger ones, I think, got hit by a car. I think he’s all right, but I probably ought to check on him. I’ll call up the city council, who should be handling these kind of cases, and find out what hospital he’s in.

  • Pauli, you are the Catholic Iowahawk!

  • Can we call them “Catholics for Voldemort?”

  • The really sickening thing about this is to realize it could have all been avoided had a good portion of misled “Social Justice” Catholics and the USCCB who were more dedicated to political correctness than Biblical truth and more fearful of Federal lawmakers than the voices of their flocks.

    You hit the nail right on its head.

    The USCCB is partially responsible for the fiasco we are in now.

    Cardinal George pulled out all the stops to get pro-lifers to vote but remained mute and silent when Bart Stupak surrendered to the Culture of Death.

  • Pingback: Rampant Dishonesty Continues « Vox Nova
  • “Can I mention Himmler?”

    No, nor any other members of the Third Reich. This is a Nazi free thread.

    I’ll do my best.

  • “Can I mention Himmler?”

    No, nor any other members of the Third Reich. This is a Nazi free thread.

    What about Sergeant Schultz or Colonel Klink? General Burkhalter? Major Hochstetter?

    No? I know nothing! Noth-thing!

  • We are being told two completely different stories about this, and I for one would like to know which story is accurate. Vox Nova has challenged you. Please answer their charge that you (and NRLC) are spreading lies:

    http://vox-nova.com/2010/07/15/rampant-dishonesty-continues/

  • I’ll allow fake comedic Nazis but only beause I’m a sucker for Colonel Klink:

  • The abortion catholics that voted for Obama are worse than hitler.
    This doesn’t leave anything for the so called Catholic blogs that spend most of their time defending and shilling for the democratic party’s love of abortion.

  • Vox Nova has challenged you

    If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still made a sound?

  • If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still made a sound?

    The laws of physics dictate that it does. Whether the sound is missed or is of any consequence or not is another thing.

  • Pingback: HHS Statement on Abortion Funding « The American Catholic
  • UPDATE, 4:03p: I’m told on high authority from someone who saw it that the Obama administration issued a statement last night stating the $160 mil wouldn’t cover abortions and then pulled it back. I’m told a new or revised statement is in the works.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/obamacare-to-fund-abortions-in.html

    Apparently M.Z. “doesn’t believe his readers are worthy of knowing the truth.” The “Rampant Dishonesty Continues”

  • The Oxford Dictionary of Current English gives the following definitions for “sound”:

    1. sensation caused in the ear by the vibration of the surrounding air or other medium. 2. vibrations causing this sensation. 3. what is or may be heard.

    The tree would not make a sound under the first two definitions, but probably would under the third.

  • July 14, 2010

    The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

    Washington, D.C. 20201

    Dear Secretary Sebelius:

    We have recently learned that the Pennsylvania application to administer a federally subsidized Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (also referred to as a high-risk pool) for individuals with pre-existing conditions contains a provision that allows federal funding for abortion in virtually any case except sex-selective abortion. Similarly, we understand that a draft summary of benefits for New Mexico’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan explicitly lists elective abortion as a covered, and therefore subsidized, service.

    Both of these cases will result in funding for abortion in direct contradiction of longstanding U.S. policy against federal funding of abortion or abortion coverage. Unfortunately, statutory language prohibiting such funding was not included in the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Instead of a statutory prohibition, the President assured Members of Congress by signing an Executive Order that claimed to ensure that abortion would not be funded under the authorities and appropriations provided in PPACA. However, further details regarding how this assurance would be implemented and enforced have not been released.

    In light of the newly discovered information about the Pennsylvania and New Mexico Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans and the paramount importance of this issue, we would request the following information no later than close of business Friday, July 16, 2010.

    1. A list of all states and the District of Columbia that plan to administer federally funded high-risk pools at the state level, including the following for each:

    a. whether an application has been submitted,

    b. whether an application has been approved, and

    c. a copy of any application that has been either submitted or approved.

    2. According to the HHS website (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/initiative/), “HHS has contracted with the Government Employees Health Association (GEHA) to administer the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan” that will provide high-risk insurance to individuals in 21 states. Please provide a list of the states that have indicated they intend to opt into the GEHA program rather than establish their own state program, and a copy of the complete contract with GEHA including any language regarding abortion.

    We look forward to your prompt response.

    Sincerely,

    [Signed by John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Joe Barton, Darrell Issa, Chris Smith, and Joe Pitts]

  • Actually I would say that number is 2 the most relevant. It doesn’t mean there needs to be an ear detecting it. Wiki:

    Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.[1]

    I don’t think anyone disputes that sonar is the use of sound waves to measure. Typically the human ear doesn’t even pick up the sound waves.

  • From Life News:

    “Meanwhile, Bakus claimed the state web sites containing information about the high risk pools, that provided the information NRLC used to verify the abortion funding, will be updated in the next couple of weeks to show they will not fund elective abortions.

    “If HHS does now issue new directives to keep abortion out of this particular program, it will be because NRLC blew the whistle on them,” Johnson said. “The Obama Administration shows a pattern of relentlessly pushing pro-abortion policies through the federal agencies and on Capitol Hill, whenever they think they can do so under the public radar — and then scurrying for cover when the spotlight comes on.”

    That both states reported they would cover elective abortions is not a dispute, although both appear to be backtracking after Right to Life uncovered the abortion funding.

    The Associated Press reported Wednesday that New Mexico “initially listed elective abortion as a covered benefit” but then “reversed course” after AP inquired about the coverage NRLC discovered.

    Michelle Lujan Grisham, deputy director of the New Mexico Medical Insurance Pool, told AP that the state’s contract with HHS stipulated the plan must follow federal law but did not spell out details on limits to abortion coverage.

    “As a result, New Mexico included elective abortion as a covered benefit, following what it was already doing with its own state health programs,” AP indicated.

    NRLC identified how the Internet site describing the New Mexico plan listed “elective termination of pregnancy” as a covered benefit and noting how it would pay for 80 percent of the cost of the abortion after the insured woman met the $500 deductible.

    Grisham initially told AP the state would follow through on that plan but then called the news outlet back later Wednesday saying otherwise: “We are in the process of correcting the package so it will not have elective abortion coverage.”

    Pennsylvania officials are backtracing as well, with Rosanne Placey, a spokeswoman for the state insurance department, telling AP the high risk pool will now not cover elective abortions: “That is not part of the benefit package.”

    Backus also said the Obama administration would ensure any abortion coverage under the new national health care program would be limited to cases when the mother’s life is in danger or rape and incest — which the Hyde Amendment limits funding of abortions to regarding other funding from the federal government, but which does not apply to the new health care law.

    Johnson ultimately told LifeNews.com: “I can and have been asked, can the Administration be trusted? Sure, they can be trusted — to try to expand federal support for abortion every sneaky chance they get.”

    “Everybody needs to constantly watch what people in this Administration are doing, not what they are saying,” he concluded.”

    http://lifenews.com/nat6540.html

  • Pauli, you are the Catholic Iowahawk!

    Answering that accusation with specificity is above my pay grade.

  • I just want to look into the eyes of my supposedly pro-life friends who supported this, and scream at them, “How could you not have known? How could you possibly not have known that this was the inevitable consequence of giving men and women who have proven themselves dishonest and pro-abortion, controll over life and death in America? You know what, let me answer that for you: you did know; some where inside you did know, but you just didn’t really care!”

2 Responses to Bribe, What Bribe?

Political Miscellania 5/12/10

Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010

A wrap-up of various items of political interest.

1.  The video that heads this post is one of the reasons why my vote for McCain in 2008 was a two handed vote, with one hand holding my nose.  McCain has long been an ardent supporter of amnesty and open borders.  Now that he is in a tough primary race with J.D. Hayworth, he is a born again believer in locking down the border against illegal aliens.  I certainly favor in making it tougher for illegals to get across the border, but I do not favor politicians who embrace positions simply to save their political skin.  I hope that the voters in Arizona will finally bring McCain’s political career to a screeching halt  by voting for his opponent in the primary.

2.  It looks like Hawaii will soon have a new Republican Congressman.  The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee is pulling out of Hawaii 1 and basically conceding that Republican Charles Djou will win the special election on May 22. The Democrats have two candidates running who are splitting the vote and thus allowing the Republicans to take a Congressional seat that has been in Democrat hands for two decades.

3.  The tea party movement claimed another scalp by causing the defeat of Republican Senator Bob Bennett at the Utah Gop Convention in his attempt to get the Republican nomination for a fourth term in the Senate. This should be a warning for all politicians:  this year is different, no re-nomination or re-election can be taken for granted.

4.  Faithful readers of this blog will know that I have quite a bit of respect for blogger Mickey Kaus who is taking on Senator Barbara Boxer in the Democrat primary in California.   Shockingly last week the LA Times refused to endorse Boxer:

On the Democratic side, we find that we’re no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer. She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could. We appreciate the challenge brought by Robert “Mickey” Kaus, even though he’s not a realistic contender, because he asks pertinent questions about Boxer’s “lockstep liberalism” on labor, immigration and other matters. But we can’t endorse him, because he gives no indication that he would step up to the job and away from his Democratic-gadfly persona.

To have the LA Times refuse to endorse Boxer is a strong indication of just how weak she is this election year.  She is probably strong enough to defeat Kaus (sorry Mickey!) in the primary, but there is blood in the water for the general election.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Political Miscellania 5/12/10

  • Bob Bennett is a bit of an outlier. The Utah Republican party is becoming VERY VERY conservative, and there was an organized effort to push him out because of TARP and his Appropriations Committee role. It began two years ago when Jason Chaffetz beat Chris Cannon for his Congressional seat. While there may be a grassroots movement to “throw the bums out” Utah’s movement has been going on a bit longer.

  • Newsweek was put up for sale by the Washington Post last week. Last year the news magazine adopted a strategy of serving as an opinion journal of the Left. The decision has proven a disaster in the marketplace, although to be fair Newsweek has been losing money for quite a while.

    And a strange decision it was. The New York Review of Books, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New Yorker are about the only publications directed at that sort of audience which have been aught but philanthropic concerns during the lifetime of Newsweek‘s current editor, and the latter two are leavened with considerable reportage and fiction and offer little straightforward commentary. Comparing Newsweek to The New Republic also demonstrates that their is an art to producing an opinion magazine that not every collecting pool of journalists has; there would not be much point in a patron like Arthur Carter or Mortimer Zuckerman employing this crew.

  • The Hawaii election is very special to me.

    Having been raised the majority of my life in the Aloha State, we have never had a Republican elected to Honolulu’s 1st congressional district.

    Inouye’s “pre-selected” appointee, Hanabasu, is power hungry and feels entitled to that position held by the granola-eating Abercrombie.

    Case also feels a sense of entitlement, but then again, many Punahou School grads feel they are entitled to many things in life (Case is AOL founder Steve Case’s cousin; Punahou is the elite private school that silver spooned Obama attended as well).

    GOP Djou needs all the support he can get to rip that seat from the most powerful Democratic machine in the nation!

  • Re: #3… Here in WA, the state GOP (executive board) is looking at automatically endorsing whomever the GOP incumbent may be, even in the presence of a stronger, more conservative challenger… even if the PCO’s overwhelming support the challenger. It will be up to the voters both in the primary and the caucuses to decapitate weak incumbents.

  • McCain has proven he works for the people that voted him to office. The media would say this is flip flopping, I would say, any politician that thought one thing and turned around when hearing what his constituents believed, is exactly what govt is about. As for JD, well that is a long story that should not even be an issue. JD is as bad as they come…JD cannot find an endorsement, I am sure he will start paying people to say they like him! JD leaves us with many great memories, whether it be Abramoff, losing his seat to a democrat, ethical issues, issues about his lack of intelligence, being a huge blowhard, being a huge boozer, being a continuous egomaniac who does not have the experience needed to succeed in Washington (and he has already proven that to us!) I had decided JD was far too inexperienced, immature, egotistical and unethical to vote for him. McCain is the third most fiscally conservative member in Senate and that along with his integrity, we have a solid Senator.

John Murtha, 1932 to 2010 Anno Domini, Requiescat In Pace

Monday, February 8, AD 2010

John Patrick “Jack” Murtha, Jr. died Wednesday morning at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, VA, after complications from gallbladder surgery. Murtha was 77.[1]

Congressman Murtha was a Democrat with a relatively populist economic outlook, and is generally much more socially conservative than most other House Democrats. He is opposed to abortion, consistently receiving a 0% rating from NARAL and 70% rating from National Right to Life Committee; however, he supports embryonic stem cell research. He generally opposes gun control, earning an A from the National Rifle Association.  Murtha was also one of the few Democrats in Congress to vote against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and also one of the few Democrats to vote in favor of medical malpractice tort reform.[2]

May he rest in peace.

_._

[1] Fox News entry by Chad Pergram.

[2] Wikipedia entry for John Murtha, Political Views

Continue reading...

5 Responses to John Murtha, 1932 to 2010 Anno Domini, Requiescat In Pace

Good Riddance

Tuesday, April 28, AD 2009

specter

Pro-abort Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Arlen Specter is now pro-abort Democrat Senator Arlen Specter.  He does this of course because he realized that Pat Toomey would have creamed him in the Republican primary in 2010.  Instead, assuming that the Democrats are deluded enough to nominate him, Toomey will cream him in the general election.  This should be a prime race for all pro-lifers around the nation next year.

Update I: Hattip to Hot Air.  Here is Specter last month on the prospect of his switching parties:

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I’m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That’s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.”

Normally, I’d berate someone like this as a self-serving turncoat.  However my reaction is simple joy to have this political hack finally out of the GOP.

Update II:  The ever perceptive reptilians at Big Lizards Blog have an intriguing look at the upcoming Toomey-Specter match up in their post A Specter Is Haunting the Democratic Party.

UpdateIII: The Cranky Conservative has some thoughts here on Specter, including the observation that after 30 years in Washington Specter is the poster child for term limits.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Good Riddance

  • We’re going to need to work blue-dog Dems or Obama will have a fillibuster proof Senate

  • Lets be honest here, he simply jumped from one tyranical party to another. At least now his label is more accurate. American politics is about winning, not about anything having the least to do with truth.

  • Why do you think Toomey will kill Specter (or another Dem) in the PA general election? Everything I’ve read suggests that PA has become more Dem over the recent past.

  • No doubt I wil be in the minority among many Republicans but I am not cheering this. Spectre no dounbt will be compelled to go along with Dems on certain procedural votes in order to maintain a potential Chairmanship. I suspect some deal was made here.

    It should be recalled that ASpectre had a ACU rating of 44. Casey has a ACU rating of 8. I am anxious about how far that might drop

  • Pingback: The Moderate Voice
  • JH,

    You should cheer this (although I know you dislike Toomey, who is now most assuredly going to win the nomination).

    THIS is the REAL Arlen Specter: the one who will do or say whatever is necessary to get elected, but, at the end of the day, you can always expect to act more like a liberal than a conservative.

  • Jay,

    Well as to the GOP primary another republican might challenge Toomey in the primary since the field is clear

    I have no doubts that Spectre wasa liberal Republican. But for the most part he was good on the procedural votes. Now we are facing a Filibuster prrof Senate which is frightening.

    If Toomey or another Republican cannot defeat Spectre (which I think is likely in the general) then what have gained in real practical terms

    I honestly think our only hope is somehow Spectre is defeated in the Democrat primary

    I think Spectre will do quite well in the general

  • Also, now Huck (who we all should know is not on good terms with Toomey) is free to back the other pro-life Republican in the GOP primary without fearing any pro-life recriminations for throwing the nomination to Specter.

    That’s a good thing, too, from your perspective. Because, as I noted at your blog, a pro-life split in the primary that could have thrown the nomination to Specter would have been the cause of Santorumesque retribution toward those who didn’t back Toomey as the strongest pro-life horse in the race.

  • As for “what have we gained”, I’m not a Republican, so I don’t much care. Specter is a leftist pro-abort regardless of whether he has an “R” or a “D” next to his name. At least now, with his new-found home, there is some truth in advertising.

  • Jay well I suspect this affect non Republicans as well.

    I know many Conservatives have a love/hate relationship with the Republican party. However for all the talk I hear of “they are all the same” it appears having a Dem Super majority is in fact important and affects all sort of things.

    I agree with this from Contentions

    “. Pennsylvania Republicans played their part in this. Much as Connecticut Democrats’ decision to reject Joseph Lieberman in the 2006 Senate primaries in favor of Ned Lamont ultimately came back to bite the party – Lieberman, after all, won the state-wide race as an independent – Republicans do not help their prospects by rejecting a figure from their own party who has long represented state-wide political consensus. Granted, a left-wing Republican might not serve many Republicans’ policy priorities effectively – but neither will representation by two Senate Democrats.

    3. With a filibuster-proof majority, the Democrats have reached a major political peak. How long they stand on this peak is an open question. But Republicans have physics on their side: what goes up must come down.”

    No doubt there were many Demcratss and indeed liberals (who have no love for the Dem party) thought good riddance as to the Senaotr from Conn.

    As they found out that had consequences. Now of course Liberiman is a different animal from Spectre. I respect Libierman more. Still I am getting a sense we have seen this before on the other side.

    If somehow we regain the White House in 2004 and we get a Judicial retirement from the Bench I just hope it is not SPectre’s vote that holds it up now

    Still a lot of water must go under the bridge. THe good news it appears more and more that my GOP Senator from Louisiana is going to be safe. Now the GOP needs to find 5 or 6 more seats in able to slow this stuff down

  • You assume Pat Toomey would have defeated him in the primary. Like 6 years ago Republican leadership would have put aside their lipservice to the pro-life cause and would have been out in force to support Spector because holding a seat is more important than principle
    .
    They are all self-serving turn coats.

  • Awakeman I had no problem with Republican leadership protecting a Senate Incumbenet and I don’t think that mean there is just lip service.

    The problem is this. This is a Coalition party. If people want to say to all conservatives that are pro-choice and to voters please leave then they should that. When that happens we can have the Republican convention in a telephone booth and I don’t think that helps the pro-life cause at all.

    That being said if have to support Toomey I will though I don’t like him

    I am surious about Rick Santorum. Is he not offically damaged goods. What are the changes he could get into thsi Republican primary

  • JH:

    I most certainly hope that David Vitter’s seat is NOT safe. I prefer the GOP, but I am very much hoping the Democrats give me a reasonable option to boot Vitter out of office. Vitter has consistently lied to the people of the Louisiana, about his past transgressions and his commitment to the pro-life agenda (see: support of Rudy).

    awakeman:

    That’s true; the GOP leadership protected Specter; they reap their rewards today.

    Jay:

    If this brought the total to 59 instead of 60, I’d be right with you. However, I am a little worried that this increases the chances that the Dems can ram through FOCA or the anti-conscience clause despite anything a pro-lifer might try to do to stop it. I worry about this particularly because I think Obama will probably be concerned about losing seats in 2010, and so faces a “do now or forever hold your peace” mentality.

  • Michael

    David’s endorsement was not long term deal breaker to me. But I understand how some people feel. He has beena consistent good vote for pro-life causes. His past sins of the flesh never got me to rufffled and in fact I think most people knew that had gone on when he was voted in. It certaintly was the talk of the state

    That being said I was never a big Vitter fan but he has grown on me slightly because I can tell he has been humbled a tad. Vitter with his ego was badly in need of a humbling experience and I think he got it.

  • I think to oppose Vitter in favor of a “pro-life democrat” one would have to be completely sure this “pro-life democrat” is not a cowardly equivocator like Casey Jr. or most of the other so called pro-life democrats. Otherwise, it’s simply a vote for the pro-abortion agenda of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

    While I’m not a fan of the use of “pro-choice” over “pro-abortion”, Rudy’s position was infinitely closer to “pro-choice” than Obama et. al.

    For me the only trustworthy choice was Huckabee when it came to the paramount issue of abortion, far too many questions about the other significant candidates.

  • On a side note there is now just one Jewish Republican left in the entire COngress!!!

    I never understood this.

  • Michael,

    If hoping for Specter’s reliability is what our hopes for blocking the Dems’ anti-life agenda were based on, then that battle was lost already. Isn’t his very willingness to switch parties (not to mention his pro-abort record) indicative of his unreliability?

  • JH:

    I think most people knew that had gone on when he was voted in. It certainly was the talk of the state

    Yes, but it was talk he denied. He was asked about it point blank, and he lied. He has to date not apologized for that lie. I could deal with the other stuff if he had been honest about it.

    Jay:

    I see what you’re saying. My point was that this will embolden Obama, as there is absolutely no chance Specter will hold (as he might have before to appease the party, a small chance mind you).

    As I said in my blog, we don’t know if this will hurt us all that much. It could do nothing. But I don’t see how it helps anything other than cleaning the party out a little bit.

  • Michael

    to be more specific what Vitter was asked about was the Wendy Cortez alleged incident in New Orelans. Not about his activities in DC

    Before Vitter ran for Seante it was common knowledge that he and his wife had recieved Couseling for certain issues. WHich everyone knew what that met

  • Pingback: Flooding the Zone - Real Clear Politics - TIME.com
  • JH:

    My point is exactly on one hand the Republicans tell social conservatives that they are against abortion, same sex marriage, etc.. They pound their chest and state “We are the pro-life and pro-family party”. Yet, when they are in power they do nothing except just say if you want us to do anything you have to elect more of us, and at other times they tell us all that we should be voting for someone like Spector because we should trust them because it will all work out and because we have to build a big collition party. To hell with both parties there is not a dimes worth of difference between them.

  • awakaman,

    while pro-lifers are and should be dissappointed about progress made under Republican administrations, it’s absurd to suggest that the massive reversals under Obama are the same.

    when they are in power they do nothing except just say if you want us to do anything you have to elect more of us

    this is just false, while they often don’t do enough, they do more than nothing. Look at Senator Jesse Helms’ (God rest his soul), record of successful action on pro-life issues.

  • Well, no surprise there. The Governor of Pennsylvania had mentioned that he, Biden, and Casey had attempted to get Specter to switch parties with no luck. I suppose this prompted Specter to think about it and to make a decision.

    If anything, I’m more sympathetic in that his reasoning about political parties is not all too different from my own, particularly in regard of the “Big Tent” and feeling out of place. So, I’m sympathetic. Though, I’m not excited that once Franken is in, the Democrats have 60 votes.

    In other news, Sebelius was confirmed as the HHS Secretary (the vote was 65-31). Tito, you’d be interested to know this: Sen. Brownback voted ‘yes.’

  • Et al.,

    This is still sad news now that the extremists have a filibuster proof senate.

    Eric,

    I was aware of his initial backing. It’s pure politics since I hear that Mr. Brownback wants to run for governor and needed Sebelius’ backers to pull that trick.

    And I am not happy that he did vote ‘yes’. Very disappointing.

    Et Al.,

    How about Senator Casey Jr. switching over to the GOP?

  • I’m glad that Specter quit the GOP. Good riddance to him I say as well. But he should also quit the US Senate. He’s old, he’s got cancer, he’s been in office for over 25 years. Clinging to power, and doing so by switching parties, is a very bad sign of moral degeneration (which was evident from his support for abortion). Specter needs not just to be gone from the GOP, but defeated entirely.

  • Vail,

    Troll alert!

    Tito,

    How about Senator Casey Jr. switching over to the GOP?

    why would you want him? He’s not his father, and is only pro-life when it suits him.

  • I deleted your comment Vail, as I will delete any comment in any of my threads that attempts to use the predator priest scandal and the bishops who protected them to stop discussion on a topic.

  • I pray for Senator Casey. However, since his last voting scandal, he has been consistent in his pro-life votes.

    If anything, his father is my hero and even if Casey were like his father, I’d be very sad to see him cross over to the GOP.

  • Eric,

    For Senator Casey Jr. Even if he didn’t cross over, I’d vote for him for president if he continues with his pro-life voting record.

    I’m not a registered Republican, I just vote for the candidate that carries my Catholic values best.