Mitt Romney for President My Man Mitt: 7/22/07


	31 Comments: I've always had questions about Giuliani's adoption/abortion claims... and as much as I hate pointing you to a DNC article, they have put together quite a bit of information and links regarding his claims. We don't have to mind their conclusions or conjectures, but their article is good for the statistical links they provide. http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/giulianis_credi.php By Anonymous, at July 28, 2007 at 1:53 AM The answer is simple. being pro-life didnt pay the dividends that romney thought it would. now all people seem to care about is the jaw dropping flip-flop he made. He converts to pro-life in 04 and then promises to uphold his state's pro-life laws months later. That's the kind of flip-flopper we need in the white house! By The Dude, at July 29, 2007 at 2:45 AM If Mitt converted to pro-life at the cost of your respect, then i'm proud of him for weighing the greater good. -Ryan S By Anonymous, at July 29, 2007 at 4:31 AM Facts are facts. The fact is that Mitt Romney was 100% pro-life as Governor of Massachusetts. That is a tough row to hoe. It is easy to be pro-life in Texas or Tennessee-- it takes no courage. You judge people by their words when they have NO ACTIONS by which to judge them. When the rubber met the road, Mitt Romney was ALWAYS PRO-LIFE. Always. By Anonymous, at July 29, 2007 at 6:37 PM Well said Georgia Mom. Since Romney's works can't be criticized, anti-Romney folks focus on non-events. They ignore Fred's active participation in the pro-choice movement (lobbyist in 1991-92), but are skeptical that a guy who had always been personally pro-life was honest when he changed his public policy to favor life when life was at stake. Truly, by their fruits ye shall know them. What Romney has done is tough to criticize--so they focus on positional speculation. By Slick-Willy, at July 30, 2007 at 12:32 PM As commented on in a previous article, contrary to his public claims, Romney's gubernatorial record includes a 2006 vast expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions-on-demand. Ironically, this expansion was enacted through the “universal health care plan” he brags about. Romney had an important opportunity to stand up for taxpayers who believe abortion is murder, and for the innocent victims of frivolous abortions. He could have vetoed this bill on the grounds that it would vastly increase taxpayer funding of abortions and abortifacents. Instead, he signed the bill and put the last ceremonial nail in their collective and individual coffins. Some rationalize that Romney was justified in signing the bill because his veto would have certainly been overridden by the Democrat legislature. If Adolf Hitler's Reichstag were debating a bill to enact a universal health care plan, and, because of the legislation, more Jews would be sent to taxpayer-funded concentration camps (where the end result was also death), what would you do? Would you sign the entire bill because your veto would be overridden anyway? Would you then brag about your pro-Jew record? If so, then Romney is your candidate. If not, then stand for something and oppose this charlatan. For more information on Romney’s record and some of his troubling religious-political ties, see http://www.helmsmansociety.com/Issues/2007/mittromney072507.htm By dnewby, at August 1, 2007 at 12:53 AM dnewby- No he did not. You are wrong. For the third time, the abortions paid for by Romney's health care plan were ALREADY being paid for by previous legislation. It was nothing more than re-stating the same policy that was already in place. Had he vetoed that section of the bill, funding for abortions would have continued just as if he signed it. That language was irrelevant--very similar to McCain's immigration bill offering a border fence that was already being built. You continue to deflect and re-state the same nonsense. By Slick-Willy, at August 1, 2007 at 10:38 PM DNEWBY.... I guess you either figured that your arguments had been too systematically torn apart or else that your inane rants had not gotten enough exposure on the previous thread. (see bottom of http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/07/if-mormonism-is-on-table-then-get-to-it.asp). You have effectively restated the same postition almost word for word at least three different times on this site with almost complete disregard for the clear refutation of your ignorant if not bigoted views. Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it any more true or believable than the first two plus times that it was dressed down to reveal its absurdity. If you actually have answers for the rebuttals placed after your accusations, then respond to those. You are looking like either a fool or an automatic blog spammer gone crazy the way you are going. By General Lee, at August 2, 2007 at 2:17 PM Yes, taxpayer funding of abortions were taking place in Massachusetts, some through federal Medicaid and direct federal appropriation grants, and some through direct and indirect state and local funding. This occurs in nearly every state, in fact. That is not at issue. Had Romney vetoed the universal health care bill, and had his veto stood, taxpayer funding of abortions would not have been expanded and applied to a universal health care program. Now, every health plan extablished by the state, and subsidized by the state, includes taxpayer-funded abortions and abortifacents on demand. And every person in Massachusetts is now required to have a health care plan, with a state plan now being the forced back-up plan for all who do not obtain private insurance. How you can argue that this is not an expansion, even a vast expansion, of taxpayer-funded abortions is baffling. To argue that Romney is not accountable for signing the bill because the legislature might have overriden his veto is also troubling. Various persons on this website, for whatever reason, continue to ignore these facts and promote Romney as "pro-life." This is not accurate as I understand the term, and should be confronted. By dnewby, at August 3, 2007 at 12:24 PM dnewby- My earlier statement was incorrect. It was the Mass Court that previously forced the state to fund abortions w/in the state (not the legislature). This is a distinction w/o a difference. You are still 100% wrong. Romney's healthcare plan extends the state $ to poor people who cannot pay for it by themselves. The plan will thus pay for any abortions these people have. However, ALL OF THESE ABORTIONS WERE ALREADY BEING PAID FOR. THE ACTIVIST COURT HAD ALREADY RULED THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE MASS CONSTITUION. Not a single (not even 1) abortion has been/will be funded by the state that would not have been funded by the state prior to Mitt signing his healthcare bill. Stop spending so much time w/Brownback and get a grip on reality you deceitful anti-Mormon propagandist. By Slick-Willy, at August 3, 2007 at 1:42 PM Yes, please label me, and attempt to falsely affiliate me with another candidate, so as to provide additional strength to your arguments. The federal Health & Human Services understood the 1982 MA Supreme Court decision as follows: "The State court decided its case in February 1981, finding that Massachusetts should fund all medically necessary abortions, based on the guarantee of due process in the State's constitution. (See, Mary Moe et al. v. Secretary of Administration and Finance, Mass. Adv. Sh.(1981) 464)" Source: "GAB Decision 260: February 26, 1982 Joint Consideration - Abortion Funding,” at http://www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/dab260.html "Medically necessary" seems different than your implication that all abortions conducted with the state of Massachusetts are taxpayer-funded. According to the pro-choice organization, The Guttmacher Institute, Massachusetts is required by court order to fund “all or most medically necessary abortions.” Source: “State Policies in Brief,” Guttmacher Institute, August 1, 2007. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf But nowhere can I find evidence for a broader claim such as yours. If Mary Moe did imply -- or was subsequently interpreted to mean -- that all abortions and abortifacents were constitutionally-required to be funded by the state, I would be amazed that it had withstood any substantive legal challenge. And Medicaid would certainly not cover everything for every poor citizen. In the 1980 Harris v. McRae, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the “Hyde Amendment” to the Social Securities Act, that restricted Medicaid funding for abortion to cases involving danger to the life of the mother, rape, and incest. Unless you have something other than your opinion, it seems to me that offering universal coverage to all poor, whether they have Medicaid coverage or not, and whether it is “medically necessary” or not, is an expansion of abortion. Also, these new plans would inevitably cover some people who are currently poor, but not eligible for federal Medicaid. Finally, just for fun, wouldn't this also mean that every time Romney signed a budget bill, he was authorizing state funds for the performance of abortions on demand? By dnewby, at August 3, 2007 at 3:49 PM dnewby- I associated you with Brownback because, like you, he has leveled this verifiably false charge against Romney. As for you being a deceitful anti-Mormon propagandist: That has been clearly established in a previous thread. But, you are right. Mary Moe clearly establishes that Mass must fund "medically necessary abortions." Do you know what that means? Of course you don't. You've clearly never read the case. The Mary Moe Court defines "Medically Necessary" as follows: "(1) reasonably calculated to prevent, diagnose, prevent the worsening of, alleviate, correct, or cure conditions in the recipient that endanger life, cause suffering or pain, cause physical deformity or malfunction, threaten to cause or to aggravate a handicap, or result in illness or infirmity; and (2) there is no other equally effective course of treatment available or suitable for the recipient requesting the service that is more conservative or substantially less costly." Yes, "cause suffering or pain" is sufficient to qualify as "medically necessary." The court didn't stop there. From Mary Moe: "Interests of medicaid-eligible pregnant women in choosing medically necessary abortions far outweigh state interest in preservation of potential life, which can be enforced only by significant invasion of woman's bodily integrity by nine months of enforced pregnancy and resulting attachment the experience creates...." The court also said that requiring a physician to certify any medical necessity (as was required before this case) "...violated state due process constitutional guarantee to be free from governmental intrusion into fundamental right to decide whether to bear or beget a child by injecting coercive financial incentives favoring childbirth into decision constitutionally guaranteed to be neutral." In short, "Medically Necessary" amounts to, "the woman wants it." The court absolutely bars anyone in government or the woman's doctor from looking into why she wants the abortion. Since every birth causes "pain," abortion would easily qualify anyway. The women in Mass could find the abortion "medically necessary" and have it paid for by the state because it conflicted w/a pedicure appointment. This has been the Mass law since Feb 18, 1981. So, as I said before, "ALL OF THESE ABORTIONS WERE ALREADY BEING PAID FOR. THE ACTIVIST COURT HAD ALREADY RULED THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE MASS CONSTITUION. Not a single (not even 1) abortion has been/will be funded by the state that would not have been funded by the state prior to Mitt signing his healthcare bill." Next time take the time to read the case you deceitful bozo. Unlike you, I do my research before making claims. By Slick-Willy, at August 3, 2007 at 5:11 PM Two more points: (1) Mass already provided $100 million in healthcare beyond what the federal gov. gave through medicaid before Mitt arrived--covered abortions of many who did not even qualify for medicaid. (2) I usually don't directly insult posters, but I have two exceptions to that rule: liars & deflectors. You are both. By Slick-Willy, at August 3, 2007 at 5:51 PM If your interpretation is correct, I stand corrected on part of my interpretation/understanding of that court ruling. I believe I implied uncertainty as to certain ramifications of it. I am still uncertain, actually. Are legislators really required to fully fund Medicaid, as well as anything beyond Medicaid? What would a state court do if the legislature failed to get the votes required to approve “sufficient” funding for abortion services and providers? Throw them in jail? Force them to remain in session? Approve their own annual budget? Fine them? And if they didn’t pay the fine? Or paid the fine out of the Supreme Court’s budget? I doubt we’ll ever know because politicians like Romney never challenge them. With regard to an expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, however, key words include "medicaid-eligible." Notice its usage in the following from www.abortionaccess.org from 2004: "There is a shortage of abortion services outside of the 3 urban areas of Boston, Worcester, and Springfield, especially for low-income women. For example, women in Pittsfield who are Medicaid eligible must travel out of state or to Springfield because of the shortage of providers, let alone providers who are Medicaid eligible. Even in the urban areas, many low-income women cannot access abortion due to lack of free-care funding and long waits for the procedures at hospitals... "HOSPITAL SERVICES: Of the 62 Massachusetts hospitals that currently have ob/gyn services, only 13 offer abortion services. Of these hospitals, only 2 have ob/gyn residency training programs and do enough abortions to train residents to competency. Of the 13 hospitals that offer abortion services, several do not allow free care funds to cover abortion… "CLINIC SERVICES: There are currently 12 free standing health clinics that offer abortion services. Of these, only 4 accept Medicaid. None of the clinics offer sliding fee scales. The only clinics that accept Medicaid are in the 3 urban centers. "ACCESS TO MEDICAID FUNDING: Local welfare offices have discretion in issuing Medicaid cards to eligible pregnant women that are restricted to prenatal care only. Because there are not clear uniform guidelines, Medicaid-eligible women in some parts of the state have more problems obtaining Mass Health cards that cover abortion services. Getting a Mass Health card can take 2-3 weeks, often pushing women into their second trimester." Source: “Fact Sheet: Access to Abortion in Massachusetts,” Perhaps we are crossing semantics. Let me restate what I attempted to assert in my article, and what I have asserted here. First, not all abortions in Massachusetts are currently being paid for with tax dollars. Federal Medicaid is hardly sufficient. Many other states, while they don’t call access to abortion-on-demand or abortifacents constitutional rights, still attempt to fund them. A large infusion of taxpayer subsidies is required to overcome Medicaid restrictions and fund something on this magnitude. As the article above pointed out, many abortions were not being performed at all because many people could not access enough tax dollars to have them performed (acceptance of Medicaid, sliding fee schedule restrictions, limited state funds, etc.). This is not surprising. Second, the MA universal health care bill will increase access to taxpayer-funded abortions and abortifacents. Each universal health care program provides taxpayer-backed insurance coverage for many people who otherwise could not obtain access to abortion procedures. And they are required by this new statute to have such a plan if they cannot obtain it privately. That is not neutral or a decrease. It is an increase. By dnewby, at August 3, 2007 at 6:48 PM Liar implies that I purposely and knowingly relate falsehoods. If I have done so, please demonstrate where. One correction to my last comment: In the sentence, "First, not all abortions in Massachusetts are currently being paid for with tax dollars, the word "are currently" should be replaced with "were". By dnewby, at August 3, 2007 at 6:54 PM dnewby, You're reminding me of Bubba in the earlier thread about Mitt's inability to be president because of his faith. - You rattle off all these accusations and posture various ways. In the end, Slick explains how you're mistaken. Yet, you've always got a comeback. He and General Lee are wasting their time. So are you. - You will never vote for Mitt. You abhor him and his faith too much. - I'm just curious of two things: 1) Whom will you vote for? 2) Why can't you see Mitt in the pragmatic way that reasonable evangelicals and other Christians do? See quotes, links below: - http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/do_not_disqualify.php - http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php - You're fabricating moral issues, in addition to religious ones, to swipe at Mitt. These guys at Evangelicals for Mitt (EFM) also know Mitt stands on the side of life more securely than anyone else running. I'll quote from the heavyweights at EFM relative to those who disqualify Mitt on religious grounds. - Yes, Gov. Romney is a Mormon. We are not. According to the liberal media, this is an unbridgeable gap, and evangelicals will never turn out to support a faithful Mormon like Governor Romney. As usual, the media (and you, dnewby) have it wrong. And they root their error (as usual) in a fundamental misunderstanding about American evangelicals—seeing us as ignorant and intolerant simpletons who are incapable of making sophisticated political value judgments. To be perfectly clear, we believe Governor Romney is not only acceptable to conservative Christians, but that he is clearly the best choice for people of faith. He is right on all the issues, and he has proven his positions with actions. He is a gifted and persuasive spokesman for our political and moral values. Here is the bottom line: the 2008 election is for president, not pastor. We would never advocate that the Governor become our pastor or lead our churches—we disagree with him profoundly on theological issues. But we reject the notion that the president of the United States has to be in perfect harmony with our religious doctrine. In fact, that is not a test that has been applied before—after all, Jimmy Carter was probably more theologically in line with evangelicals than Ronald Reagan, yet we believe that Reagan was clearly the better choice in 1980. - Dnewby, get over the Mormon thing, your misinformation about abortion, and other likely brainwashings. Mitt is more pro-family and pro-life than the other guys. No doubt about it. By Nealie Ride, at August 3, 2007 at 9:31 PM More from Evangelicals for Mitt and final thoughts: Let’s leave the absurd religious litmus test to the Democrats. What we want is a president who shares our moral and political values and will put them into action. A President Romney would do that—just as he’s done in Massachusetts—making him stand head and shoulders above the rest of the field. Finally, it is not just our theory that evangelicals will support Governor Romney. In March, 2006, he shocked the political establishment by finishing second at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll in Memphis, Tennessee. We led the grassroots effort that put him above John McCain and George Allen, and where did he get the vast majority of his support? From the very Southern evangelicals who the media is convinced will not support a Mormon from Massachusetts. What about the Abortion Issue? Many people know that Governor Romney ran against Sen. Ted Kennedy back in 1994 as a pro-choice candidate. Clearly, one can be a convert on the abortion issue. Witness Ronald Reagan, the divorced movie actor who was elected president in 1980 on the strength of huge evangelical support after signing the nation’s most liberal abortion law as governor of California. Reagan later changed his heart on this issue and became one of the most effective pro-life leaders in history. Obviously, our movement can and should support true “converts” on the abortion issue. In fact, converts can be the best advocates. Governor Romney has proven he really is such a convert. As we pointed out earlier, he stood against embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, at great political cost to himself. He also pledged in his 2002 run for governor not to change the abortion laws in any way—which in his liberal state is frustrating to abortionists, not to pro-life voters. (His opponent wanted to dramatically liberalize the abortion laws, and we’re thankful she was stopped!) We are confident Governor Romney will appoint the kind of pro-life, conservative judges people of faith (and the Constitution) demand. While there’s no perfect candidate in the field on abortion, no serious presidential contender has risked more for the pro-life cause than Mitt Romney. - You clearly need some fundamental lessons on this topic. What do you think about the Huckabee-Brownback religious squabble? Unacceptable? If so, why? - Though Mitt's neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, it's equally unacceptable to dismiss Mitt for any religious reason. Commander-in-chief, dnewby, not pastor-in-chief. - Finally, not knowing your facts results in the same outcome as knowingly misleading or lying. Your irresponsible dissemination of falsehoodss about Mitt's abortion record is deporable. You never even read the case Slick was referring to, did you? Yet, the entire time (likely for many months now) you have pretended you were some type of expert on the matter> Until now. Slick took the time to look up the facts and expose you for who you are--uninformed, unprofessional, and irresponsible. I could go on. - What type of pseudo-intellectual are you? Just working hard to support your bash-Mitt's-religion site? What else are your real motives in all this? By Nealie Ride, at August 3, 2007 at 10:16 PM dnewby- My post didn't deal w/"interpretations." I quoted the law itself. The ramifications are clear: anyone that qualified for Medicaid could have the state fund their abortion for any reason; the door was left open for many others (and was used by thousands of others) who didn't qualify for Medicaid to have the state fund their abortions. The funding/non-funding of previously enacted legislation (or a court order as in this case) is a complex issue that is irrelevant to this discussion. The reason it is 100% irrelevant is that Mass was spending $100 million/year to pay for medical bills and abortions of people that were ineligible for Medicaid. Romney's health care plan has stayed w/in the bounds of that figure, so not one extra dollar is being diverted to that area. In fact, since inflation lowers the value of $, Mass is paying less real $ year to year for abortions + medical care. This information alone adequately undresses your "vast expansion" claim. Moreover, Romney's health care plan taps into many of the same federal and state programs. For example, Medicaid will continue to fund medical care for those that are eligible. Some state programs that were already in place will continue to fund the same people they were. The law does not require hospitals to expand abortion services, so those who are barred by not being able to reach an abortion clinic will have the same problem. Clearly, you have never read Mitt's health care plan. If you have, your lack of comprehension/retention is astonishing. You started off this thread by claiming, "Romney's gubernatorial record includes a 2006 vast expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions-on-demand." In law, which you clearly don't understand, affirmative claims carry the burden of proof. You have the burden of PROVING "vast expansions" and you haven't come close. You haven't proven even one extra case. Nor can you. There are none. You are a liar. Your definition is inadequate--your intent is impossible to prove on a blog like this. However, courts of law hold those who "knew" and those who "should have known" equally accountable--they're used to dealing with weasels like you. When you make disparaging remarks about a person, you have an ethical duty to have the facts. You should know in detail why your statements are true. Even when rebutted you continue your cause w/little concern for truth. Anyone so negligent is a liar or worse. By Slick-Willy, at August 3, 2007 at 11:16 PM Impossible to prove? Perhaps to your satisfaction. Does it mean nothing that Massachusetts received $225 million in additional Medicaid funds for passing this universal health care program? "[Massachusetts] State officials said the agreement, known as a Medicaid waiver, also includes an additional $225 million annually to expand Medicaid programs for the poor." Source: “Federal funds strengthen Mass. universal health insurance plan,” Ann Marie Curling, July 27, 2006 at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/27/federal_funds_strengthen_mass_universal_health_insurance_plan/ Where do you think some of those funds go? (As an aside, I found it ironic that HHS director Michael Leavitt, pro-abortion advocate and former Utah governor -- and Mormon by the way, but emphasizing that would be "bigoted" -- was there to praise this expanded partnership.) Massachusetts Planned Parenthood doesn't seem to think it was all that bad for their objectives: "Angus McQuilken, vice president for public relations and government affairs at Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (PPLM), also sees light at the end of the tunnel. 'One aspect of the Massachusetts plan is expansion of eligibility for MassHealth, which is our state Medicaid program,' he says. 'We have always sought to provide services to low-income women through a combination of providing services to MassHealth patients and providing a sliding scale for patients who are paying out of pocket.'” Source: “Universal Health Care and Women,” Aaron Dunn, Planned Parenthood, May 23, 2007, at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/public-affairs/universalhealthcare-14567.htm Or we can consider Romney objectives: “These policies are first being offered to people who earn less than the federal poverty level -- $9,800 a year for a single person -- but do not qualify for MassHealth, the usual insurance for poor people. They are a bargain, with premiums defrayed by the state. Romney hopes to enroll 50,000 people.” Source: “Step forward on health,” Boston Globe Editorial, October 3, 2006 at http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2006/10/03/step_forward_on_health/ We can admit that this plan is part of the agenda to increase abortions on demand, or we can ignore the obvious and wait for the actual body count. By dnewby, at August 4, 2007 at 5:38 AM Wait for the body count, huh? It sounds like you don't bother to wait for anything--certainly not personal research or inquiry--except another quote supporting your arguments. - You really think Leavitt advocates for abortions? He's got a job to do and abortions are legal in this country. If Leavitt is an active LDS, why would you question his personal pro-life committment through innuendo and association w/ this legislation? Not very Christian, I must say. - Leavitt didn't praise any expanded partnership relative to abortion. That's your claim. That's not reality. These are his words from the article that day: Leavitt said that ``every component of our society" needs to contribute to giving all Americans access to ``affordable, basic healthcare." He praised the Massachusetts program as ``an important national model," but he also warned that implementation of the insurance program could create unexpected problems. ``None of us should expect perfection here," Leavitt said. ``Mistakes are going to be made. Lessons are going to be learned. They'll be learned by lots of people, and we'll get better at this. But this is an important moment, and not just today in the state of Massachusetts, but also across the country." I don't copy your conclusions from these statements. Leavitt simply praises the new plan in a broad way. He does so with caution, however, knowing unexpected problems could arise. - Why would Ann Marie Curling--a Romney diehard--report on a story that could only condemn her candidate? Her report emphasized the $-saving aspects and unique nature of the plan. I don't think she believed the additional $225 million would vastly increase abortion access. Neither do I. - In fact, where are the facts of the matter? What % of this additional $ (225 million) went to abortions that otherwise wouldn't have happened? That up to that point couldn't be performed because of a lack of funds? All you bother to say is, "Where do you think some of those funds go?" Why don't you find out yourself? You're making the claim of guilt. Do your homework to discover if Mitt has really done what you claim! Geez, dnewby. Associate yourself with the facts. - I think Slick has nailed you to the wall on that one already, newby. Every abortion needed to date was able to be performed before the new plan came into effect. That is, Mitt's new plan didn't open floodgates. They were already wide open. - You don't bother to look up the facts surrounding your vomited quotes. What do you do for a living? It likely doesn't involve research. You'd be out of work if that were the case. - I believe Slick is an attorney. In his line of work, you must know what you're talking about--be one with the facts of the case. That is what Slick did systematically and you currently "stand corrected" (your words earlier) and discredited. - I conclude that once the research is done on your most recent discharge of quotes you'll be proven wrong. Again. - That doesn't seem to matter to you, however. You've got one interesting cross to bear or mega-hobby in your life, dnewby: bash Mitt with abandon but without regard for fact. By Nealie Ride, at August 4, 2007 at 7:55 AM Actually, I was referring both to Leavitt's past as governor of Utah, and his continued inaction as head of HHS with regard to millions of dollars in annual federal appropriations to abortion providers. Like Romney, he has held positions of power and opportunity. That is a whole new and exciting topic. I already responded that the MA supreme court decision's reach is sketchy at best, due to funding powers and decisions ultimately made by the legislature and governor. They hold the purse strings for the courts, as well as other government programs, which provides them considerable leverage against judicial activism. Utah, for instance, has had a federal child welfare ruling against it. A CA judge threatening action if it does not comply with his activist demands. Several years ago, the senate and house leadership here seriously considered giving this judge's decision the middle finger, and, though they didn't ultimately do so (for other reasons), jointly determined that there was little to prevent them from doing so. That's one reason I said I would be amazed if this interpretation of the scope of this decision would stand any substantive legal challenge. I haven't altered the original arguments made in my article at http://helmsmansociety.com/Issues/2007/mittromney072507.htm The universal health care bill opens wide new access doors for abortions and abortifacents. As pointed out by Planned Parenthood and others, increased access was required to receive these "services," and it was access that previously prevented more abortions from happening. That's the way it appears to work in nearly every state, whether they claim abortion to be a constitutional right or just a convenience. Again, the universal health care bill increased access to all state health care programs. That was a stated objective of Romney and others. A state program is now to be a minimum coverage program. Every state coverage program includes: 1) abortion "services," and 2) "family planning services", lingo that includes non-traditional abortifacents that terminate pregancies at least 3 months past conception. In other words, you pop various types of pills to abort, rather than undergo, say, a surgical procedure. Access is key. The $225 million is additional annual Medicaid funding is another key to increase that access. Direct and indirect state and local funding is key. The abortion industry also has a track record of finding creative loopholes -- using financial sleight of hand and passive politicians to get more of what they want. And please don't tell me I have to prove this to you as well. They are so confident and positive because they understand. By dnewby, at August 4, 2007 at 12:30 PM dnewby- Again, you spew a few nonsensical quotes that have nothing to do with your initial claim of "vast expansion." Now that all of your arguments on the law have been entirely dismantled you resort to opinion quotes and hypotheticals. You are truly a mental midget. The $225 million you're talking about is through Medicaid = Federal Government = can ONLY pay for abortions where mother's life is at stake, or where she conceived through rape or incest. First, such cases are VERY rare. Second, Mass abortion funding already took care of all of those cases and went WAY beyond. Thus, this $225 million doesn't expand abortions at all. Because you already quoted this information about the federal restrictions in an earlier post, you knew this was the case. Your grossly negligent/flat-out deceitful posting is astonishing. "We can admit that this plan is part of the agenda to increase abortions on demand, or we can ignore the obvious and wait for the actual body count." Admit whatever you like you feeble-minded nitwit. As we've seen, admissions from you have little relation to reality. By Slick-Willy, at August 4, 2007 at 12:41 PM dnewby- The reach of Mary Moe is clear. It was never questioned by subsequent legislative or judicial actions. Every word in it was being applied 100% in MA when Mitt took office. As with other subjects, you're clearly an ignoramus when it comes to the government's "purse strings." In brief, legislatures can technically "fail to comply with" or "fail to fund" court decisions. This is rare indeed -- has happened maybe five times in history on the federal level (most of which were during or before the Civil War). However, when courts rule on constitutionality, funding is often secondary. If the legislature does not add amendments to their constitution to change its meaning, cutting off funding is not enough. The state will still be liable for the bills associated w/the court's ruling and the bill collectors will be paid in state/municipal bonds. Try again you intellectually deficient bigot. By Slick-Willy, at August 4, 2007 at 1:02 PM Daniel, You're clearly out of your league here. - I suggest that you gravitate toward what you're good at. That is, focus instead on your "God-given" talents for attacking Mitt and many other LDS people. Don't discuss legal matters or specifics relating thereto. You're not getting anywhere in that realm. - Continue on your sweet Helmsman Society web site. That is your starting and ending point. His membership in the LDS Church is paramount to your perspective about Mitt Romney. - Speaking of your site I'm surprised you only found five objections for Mitt becoming president. I have a few more suggestions that you somehow omitted. - More good material for you: #6) Mitt's LDS underwear would undermine national security. He could use them in some exotic manner to transmit message to other LDS people in government posts in Russia, Iran, or elsewhere. His religious underwear will surely pose a threat to our country. #7) As president, Mitt might meet with dissident LDS members while in LDS temples, and secretly plot to destory the U.S. Of course, he'd replace the U.S. government with a Mormon caliphate. #8) Mitt's sons will almost certainly be made LDS apostles if Romney wins the election. This would cement Mitt's control over the LDS Church. Then, he could fully tap into Mormon resources and control the world. - How ridiculous are these examples? Very. Yet, your five are equally ludicrous. - You're overwhelmingly biased against Mitt. Gotta get over it or you'll never view him fairly. By Nealie Ride, at August 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM I keep wanting to post something as a response to dnewby's rants... such as, "Even if the Mass Legislature COULD withhold funds, why would they... they are NOT the Utah legislature opposing a CA activist judge (as was your comparison)... they are the 90+% LIBERAL, DEMOCRATIC, PRO-CHOICE, MASS Legislature... they're NOT going to withhold funds for abortions, they are more likely to find loopholes to fund more abortions... Or I could say, "Do you honestly think that Mike Leavitt or any other cabinet member has such complete authority and autonomy to stop or even limit abortions which the Supreme Court has determined is a constitutional right?" Well, I would begin such arguments and maybe a few others, except for the fact that SlickWilly keeps piping up and completely dressing you down to bare bigoted bones before I can get to it. I too, like Willy, generally will not openly insult anyone if I can avoid it. The fact that he has done it so frequently to you of late is even a bit shocking to me until I analyze weather or not the insult is true/warranted. I thought to myself that if these criticisms were leveled at me, I would feel somewhat insulted and I would try to understand the root or cause of the criticism. Perhaps you, too have pondered such a thing, but it seems you have not yet come up with the answer. I have decided to try to help you out here. You have been called a liar. That is a serious charge. You maintain that if you didn't know you were wrong, you could not have been lying. SlickWilly maintains that as an accuser you have the burden of proof, and you will be found guilty or in contempt if it is determined that you SHOULD have known the truth of what you said. You have been called an ignoramous. This is because you continually maintain that something is true DESPITE the facts to the contrary, and then retreat to the "I didn't know" corner when the truth comes to light. Not knowing something is the same thing as being ignorant. You have been called a bigot. This is also a serious charge. A bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. By repeating inflamatory rhettoric with such abandon against a group and then refusing to back up those claims or even answer arguments against those claims is bigoted. Singling somebody out and holding them to an impossible standard because of their association with a certain group is bigoted. Even if you BELIEVE you are correct about a group of people, if you are wrong, yet continue to spread your poison, you are a bigot. Thisis why you're being labeled. Maybe you don't care, but hopefully now you'll at least understand. Last of all, I need to take you to task on your argument/debate style. If you were in a court of law, you would have to support your claims with REAL FACTS. You have not done so, and would be held in contempt. If you were in a debate class, you would be required to show legitimate sources and would not be allowed to stand on personal interpretations or hypotheicals. You would get an F. But here, on a blog like this, of course you can get away with almost any argument style you want to use. So you have chosen the one that is tried and true for many - and I've especially noticed these tactics being used by anti-mormons... from pamphlets, books, or in person. They are completely inane, but you have the luxory of never having to admit to being wrong. Here is the basic format. You say, "Person or Group #1 did/said/believes A, B, and C!" I say, "He didn't do A or B and he did C because of reason X which is completely reasonable". You then say, "But he also did D,E, and F!" To which I respond, "He didn't do D, he did E but admitted he was wrong, and what does F have to do with anything? It is completely irrelevant!" To which you respond by saying, "But he did G, and he also is connected to person/group #2 who probably did H,I, and J!" Do you see the trend? You never really address the point, you either repeat your previous argument or you deflect and move to another. This famous tactic may work on simpletons and those not really interested in the subject, but they have no place in a serious argument. Though I try to restrain myself in using labels, I must say that Willy's descriptions of you were in most cases warranted. I challenge you to prove him wrong. By General Lee, at August 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM Come on, folks. When the enemy on the ground looks up and smiles at their new financial situation, you should take it more seriously. They may be ideologically twisted, but they are not financial idiots. They don’t need an after-the-fact, detailed performance audit by the state auditor (good luck getting that) to understand their new avenues of funding in MA. As I have tried to explain, perhaps never to everyone’s full satisfaction, you are still ignoring the uninsured, or less than fully insured, or even employers who have uninsured employees, who, in order to comply with the universal bill (or help their employees comply), must now attempt to purchase insurance or additional insurance. Those who cannot afford other insurance can now purchase a state insurance plan, but each of these plans include “abortion services” and “family planning services.” Their participation will increase the funds available to these state insurance pools. This is a new mandate against the taxpayers, signed into effect by Romney. Additional funds can be utilized to further subsidize abortions, abortifacents, and everything else involved in making those happen. And yes, as we’ve discussed (I think I brought it up), Medicaid will not directly pay for many surgical abortions due to the Hyde Amendment. But it will pay indirectly for a host of other activities associated with abortions on demand, including some abortifacents (i.e. part of “family planning” – see http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/lowincome/16393res20040721.html under the topic, “Does Medicaid pay for other reproductive health care?”), lab work (for instance, in Utah, the Utah Department of Health is listed as one of Planned Parenthood of Utah’s top 5 independent paid contractors in 2002 at http://accountabilityutah.org/IssuesAlerts/LegAlerts/2004/Infanticide061304.htm#3 ), and “education” (Planned Parenthood of Utah is currently prohibited from doing abortions in Utah, so the bulk of the federal government grants cited in the above article likely fund its “educational efforts” -- other loosely associated state-licensed clinics and hospitals handles the surgical abortion procedures), and other “services” required to fund abortion providers and make abortions happen. And Medicaid pays for a host of services that can offset costs for the insurance holder to focus personal and other state and local resources on abortion services not directly covered (or in the grey area). There are so many angles for additional funding under this universal bill, that have been used by abortion providers and government proponents of abortion, we could spend years highlighting them. Your counterarguments, and continued defense of Romney, demonstrate a more disturbing trend than even Romney’s record on taxpayer-funded abortion, however. You have no idea of the power of the MA legislature and governor because you appear to have little expectations for them. I have already cited Planned Parenthood’s lamentation that so many individuals in MA were not getting the funding the courts demanded prior to this new universal health care era. Just because an activist court wanted it, didn’t mean they got it. Your legislature and governor have the power to resist every time they deal with annual appropriations. They just need to be as committed as their opponents are. Or, to be honest, because politicians rarely lead the way to a better future, they need you to be as committed as your opponents are. I already promised a response to other arguments dealing with the Mormon church on another thread. I’ll respond there when I can so as not to be as redundant. Regarding the attacks on my personal character, I see them as distracting nonsense, and prefer to spend available time responding to facts and arguments. By dnewby, at August 6, 2007 at 1:26 PM dnewby- Once again you follow the same argumentation for which General Lee criticized you. And, as always, your facts are wrong. Your claim of "vast expansion" seems to find a more narrow niche of hypothetical people w/every increasingly nebulus post. I've fully demonstrated that the Medicaid eligible and anyone else remotely poor in MA could have their abortions paid for by the state (w/o any question about why) long before Mitt took office. You now focus on the uninsured or not fully insured. Well, if their reason for not being insured was due to poverty, they could ALREADY have their abortions paid for. If their reason for not being insured was choice, they are now forced to pay for private insurance, which WILL NOT be subsidized by the state. The state plan, by the way, offers no state insurance. It subsidizes private plans (at varying degree) for people who earn $0 to $50k. In either case, the state funding of abortion does not increase. Remember, Mary Moe gives free abortions to pretty much anyone that would find $ to be a limiting factor at all. I've allowed you to get away w/the claim that all insurance plans in MA necessarily involve free abortions. I believe this is false. I'm not going to read the whole law again--your history of lying about such facts allows me to feel at ease w/this assumption. As I understand it, people always have the option to choose such a plan, but it is not automatically part of every healthcare plan in MA. Your assertion that I/Nealie/General Lee are uninformed regarding the legislatures/governors power is comical. After the way you have been shown to be the great ignoramus on a multitude of topics, such assertions are laughable. I've already dismantled (w/specifics) your clueless views on legislative/executive interaction w/the judiciary. Certainly they could do something (amend the state constitution). But nothing less would release them from liability for abortions allowed by the court. Your only solid points are totally irrelevant to your claim of "vast expansions" and your sources have no relevance to this argument. Each post is more nebulus and worthless than the one before. When undressed, your arguments (and probably your manhood) come up short, thin, transparent, lacking, etc. Admittadely, your manhood is irrelevant. However, my assertion that you are a lying, deflecting, ignoramus w/meager mental acumen is well founded by your history. By Slick-Willy, at August 6, 2007 at 3:00 PM Wow... Slick-Willy... That is un unnecessary remark to be sure. And, as you said, completely irrelevant. But I guess you made it out of frustration with dnewby's refusal to face up to the actual issue and his continued deflection / hiding from the issues. As I mentioned, dnewby's arguments follow a famous, though extremely flawed argument style. "Mitt Romney a) vastly expanded abortions, b) supports monarchies and tyrannical governments Response: No, there is no evidence that Mitt Romney has expanded abortions, in fact, according to evidence x,y, and z, abortions are LESS funded than they were before Romney took office. and No, Romney doesn't, nor do Mormons or the LDS Church, support, condone, or encourage tyrannical forms of government including Monarchies. Arguments p,q, and r prove this. Dnewby's response: Yes he did expand abortions. and Yes Mormons including Romney do support Monarchies. Reply again: No they don't, what you're saying is rediculous and repeating it doesn't make it true. Show some facts to refute the facts that have been shown. Dnewby's response: Well, even if x, y, and z are true, don't you think that because of f and g that abortions would have been expanded? Reply... No, that is a hypothetical. There is no proof that that would have expanded abortions in any way. Dnewby's response. Yes they would expand abortion. I really really think they would expand abortion. It is only reasonable to assume this. It is highly likely that this happened. Any thinking person should conclude that this probably did happen. And it goes around and around. You show sources, but they are either irrelevant to the issue or they simply reenforce hypotheticals when viewed from your angle. And Slick-Willy, who is obviously used to a standard debate format gets increasingly frustrated with your inability to see the flaws in your own arguments. Some of Willy's recent comments are completely irrelevant to the issue and are even insulting and degrading to the discussion. However, I think that the discussion had been fairly well degraded before he made those comments, which is possibly why he didn't mind making them. Dnewby's refusual to stick to and answer the arguments, and his rediculous, insulting, and degrading portrayal of Mormons as Tyrant-lovers and more have relegated this thread to one of little value. But just in case, as I like to believe, there is hope for everyone including dnewby, I will try to distill this to it's basics and see if we can get a straight and simple answer. OK... Which of the serious contenders for president is a BETTER choice than Mitt Romney? (Notice I didn't ask which person you (Dnewby) would vote for, because with the strange standards you seem to hold for people the answer is probably Ron Paul or someone else that has no chance in the race). My point is, when all the facts are considered, Mitt Romney, with all of the imagined warts some may give him, is STILL far and away the best choice (of anyone with any real shot). And that includes his stand on abortion. (Which, by the way, he was lauded for and given awards for by Pro-life groups WHILE he was in office as Governor.) By Anonymous, at August 6, 2007 at 6:30 PM General Lee- I agree 100%. My statements about dnewby's male inadequacy shows I have the maturity of a 14 year old. :) Even before I posted it, I knew it had no chance of helping the discussion in any way. But it was fun to write nevertheless. However, you can see I did not allow my penchant for personal insults to get in the way of substantive argument--I dismantled his claims. Again. Moreover, as far as I'm concerned the discussion is dead. Dnewby is an unreprentant bigot. His claims are demonstrably false. Each of his arguments have been taken apart one at a time, yet he continues libelling Romney on this issue unapologetically. After he was taken to task on the law, he shifted to the position that increased cash caused more abortions. After he was taken to task on that, he shifted to executive/legislative intervention. After he was taken to task there, he moved to a nebulus position based purely on opinion statements, hypotheticals and speculation. He moves further and further outside the realm of substance to that happy place where nothing can be proven. I have no respect for Daniel Newby. None. Zero. By Slick-Willy, at August 6, 2007 at 7:21 PM I believe I have made my arguments clear. The funding sources cited (increased federal Medicaid, increased burden on taxpayers to fund abortion and family planning services, resultant cost-shifting of current state and local resources, etc.), are not hypothetical. These are currently utilized all over America to the degree that they become available to abortion proponents. To assume that they will not be utilized in this fashion under the MA universal health care bill is illogical. Again, give your opponents more credit. The abortion industry would not celebrate this bill and its impact on expanding abortion services were it revenue-neutral or revenue-negative toward their objectives. They would not celebrate expaned enrollment in health coverage plans that include abortion (remember Romney's hopes for 50,000?) if it would do nothing for the thousands who could not previously get access to abortion funding. I will add that funding has traditionally provided effective means to counter federal and state court decisions. I am astounded that this appears to be a new principle. Pro- and con- forces on numerous issues, including child welfare, abortion, gun rights, and tax enforcement, have frequently utilized legislative funding mechanisms to achieve their objectives when the courts, or even the people, do not concur. I think we are now going in circles. Readers have my website address, and they can decide for themselves. I will be adding material to it soon, and then from time to time. By dnewby, at August 8, 2007 at 12:24 PM dnewby- You are definately going in circles. But you're the only one. It's called spinning. You claimed Mitt caused a "vast expansion" of abortions. You carry the burden of proof for that libellous claim. Quotes from a pro-choice group/person about whether they liked the plan when the bill was signed are not proof. It's called heresay and because it so often inaccurate, it is inadmissible in court. It does not show any expansion, much less your "vast expansion." If the pro-choicer was right about their initial feeling, you should be able to easily back it up w/data. You can't. For all we know the pro-choicer was just wrong. I mean, when it comes to analyzing law and facts, he could be as dim as you, right? You've proven nothing regarding cost shifting. The state does not pay a single extra dollar for healthcare, much less abortion services, than it did before. The federal money (which can't be used to pay for new abortions) has increase and you vaguely speculate that maybe it would act to facilitate or pay for pills, etc. Since all abortions could already be paid for by the state, hospitals have no extra incentive to open abortion services. Besides, opening an abortion clinic stigmatizes hospitals (even in liberal areas). To assume the money information creates "vast expansion" is idiotic. It requires multiple hypotheticals and speculations to get from point A (fact) to point B (your conclusion). You have no data to support your affirmative claim, which makes it irresponsible and unethical. You are a liar. You are a deflector. You are a bad person. By Slick-Willy, at August 8, 2007 at 4:13 PM Post a Comment