Listen to me!! (But don’t tell anyone)

By Jennifer J. Foster

From CNN’s Political Ticker:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

You know, circumstance (and some sketchy decision-making) made Sarah Palin a national figure when she was chosen as John McCain’s out-of-nowhere VP pick.

She insists that whatever poor or unfavorable impressions people have of her are the result of attacks on her by the national media (only the “liberal” members of the national media, though).

But here’s the thing: If you believe that the media parses your words and edits your tapes to make you look like an idiot, why wouldn’t you want as many legitimate, complete representations of your speeches as possible to counter your “attackers”?

I was hopeful that Palin was right—that McCain’s campaign staff had mishandled her and that the incompetency she appeared to show during her national roll-out was not her fault.

But a year later, I still don’t get Sarah Palin.

And it appears that I’m not alone: According to a Gallup poll noted by CNN, only about one in three Americans would seriously consider casting their vote for her.

I’m one of the other two.

Still not settled

By Jennifer J. Foster

Here’s your latest update on the status of the ongoing controversy over whether abortion will be covered in the pending public option.

From The New York Times:

House Democratic leaders struggled Wednesday to strike a deal that would restrict the use of federal money to pay for abortions under sweeping health care legislation headed for debate on the House floor this week ...

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a supporter of abortion rights, has little choice but to heed the concerns of members of her caucus who oppose abortion. As many as 40 House Democrats, a potentially decisive bloc, have threatened to oppose the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion.

As the Times reports, the current House bill neither requires nor forbids health plans from covering abortions; Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, would decide whether the public option would cover them.

Sebelius has a long record of support from and cooperation with Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the world. So while the House bill doesn’t stipulate that the public option would cover abortion, everyone knows that if Sebelius is making the decision, it will.

I’ve told you here previously about the effort by U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak to ensure that tax dollars are not used to fund abortions. Stupak’s amendment, though it is being assailed as an infringement on women’s rights, would simply continue the policy the federal government has had to abortion funding for 30 years.

U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth now has a compromise proposal. As the Times reports, “if the public plan decides to cover abortion, it would have to hire private contractors to handle money that might be used for that purpose.

Predictably, neither side is happy.

Supporters of abortion rights, like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the proposed restrictions went too far.

Laurie Rubiner, vice president of Planned Parenthood, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal would “tip the balance away from women’s access to reproductive health care.”

“Abortion should not be treated any differently from any other medical benefit or procedure,” Ms. Rubiner said. “It is our hope and expectation that the secretary would decide to include coverage of abortion in the public option.“

... The bill stipulates that in every part of the country, there must be at least one insurance plan that provides coverage of abortions and at least one that does not.

Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal was “a phony compromise.”

“It serves no purpose except to assist Speaker Pelosi in peeling votes away from an amendment that would flatly prohibit the public plan from paying for elective abortions,” Mr. Johnson said. That amendment was offered by Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan.

It’s been said that a sign of a good compromise is that neither side likes it. That may be true. But Ellsworth’s proposal does come off as a cop-out of sorts—not specifically precluding the public option from covering abortion, but simply providing a middleman to handle the money.

I hope the pro-life members of the Democratic Caucus see this for what it is: Worthless window dressing.

 

Hurrah for Hillary

By Jennifer J. Foster

Hurrah for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who’s finally speaking bluntly to Pakistani leaders and their people.

From the Associated Press:

In a lively give-and-take with students at the Government College of Lahore, Clinton said inaction by the government would have amounted to ceding ground to terrorists.

“If you want to see your territory shrink, that’s your choice,“ she said, adding that she believed it would be a bad choice.

Clinton likened Pakistan’s situation—with Taliban forces taking over substantial swaths of land in the Swat valley and in areas along the Afghan border—to a theoretical advance of terrorists into the United States from across the Canadian border. It would be unthinkable, she said, for the U.S. government to decide, “Let them have Washington (state)“ first, then Montana, then the sparsely populated Dakotas, because those states are far from the major centers of population and power on the East Coast.

Clinton was responding to a student who suggested that Washington was forcing Pakistan to use military force on its own territory. It was one of several questions from the students that raised doubts about the relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

I like that comparison Clinton made regarding the land concessions. The Pakistani approach takes on a new feel when you look at it from that perspective, doesn’t it?

The bottom line for Pakistanis is that, for better or worse, their country is a nuclear power. They wanted to achieve that status, and now they have to live with the responsibility of being one. If they are not going to do the things necessary to ensure the viability of their democratically elected government—and, therefore, the security of those nukes—then someone has to.

And all of us—Americans, Europeans, Talibanis, al Qaeda and everyone else alike—know that it’s not going to be the U.N.

Pakistan has a choice. They can do what’s necessary to stop the advance of the Taliban, or they can watch while someone else does.

FactCheck on abortion funding in health care debate

By Jennifer J. Foster

President Obama and pro-choice Democrats insist one thing.

Pro-life Democrats and right-to-life groups insist the exact opposite.

Confused about who’s telling the truth in the debate over taxpayer-funded abortions in the health care bill?

You’re not alone.

I’ve been telling you for weeks now that the bill would provide abortion coverage under a taxpayer-funded public option.

But don’t take my word for it. Read what FactCheck.org has to say.

As usual, FactCheck does a great job of cutting through the bull to the bottom line.

And the bottom line is more irrefutable than most, in this time of squishy-mouthed, double-talking politicians.

‘Not happy with me’

By Jennifer J. Foster

I told you last week about how U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, has organized a group of Democrats to vote with Republicans to block the health care legislation if it is not amended to block taxpayer money from being used to cover abortion. (Details, including an explanation of how the current bill would change standing federal policy on tax-funded abortions, in last week’s post.)

Let’s see how Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing with this big-tent concept, shall we?

From The Hill:

Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.

During an interview on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill ...

Stupak pointed out that he and Democratic leaders have a fundamental disagreement on whether health plans that receive subsidies from the government should be allowed to provide coverage options on abortions.

Stupak wants a vote on the House floor to strike the language, and predicts he would have the votes to pass such an amendment.

“This has been federal law since 1976,“ he said, noting that President Barack Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.

“We have to have a vote,“ he said.

Hmm. Sounds like Pelosi isn’t playing well with others.

Well, no worries. This guy is just like so many others, right? He’ll make a lot of noise for the national media attention, and then he’ll back down in time for things to calm down so he can keep his seat.

Not so fast, my friend.

Stupak stressed he wants to vote for healthcare reform and is “still somewhat optimistic” that he will reach an accord with Democratic leaders.

However, the Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: “I’m comfortable with where I’m at. This is who I am. It’s reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it.“

Wow. A principle-driven legislator, completely unafraid of losing his power—and, therefore, uncontrollable?

No wonder Pelosi doesn’t dig him.

See also:

Remember how we were talking about how, if left unaddressed, this component of the health care legislation could create problems for the Democratic leadership and the bill’s overall prospects? Behold, pushback: CNN’s Political Ticker had this item last week on how the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged priests around the country to speak out against the legislation from the pulpit this Sunday. The conference provided fliers for insertion into this weekend’s newsletters “urging parishioners to contact their senators and representatives to ask them ‘to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments,‘“ CNN reported.

“The bills will have to change or the bishops have pledged to oppose them,“ the flier reads. “Our nation is at a crossroads.“

Indeed.

Check out this story about a former executive director of a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Texas who had a change of heart after witnessing a shift in the organization’s focus:

According to (former director Abby) Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,“ said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.

I have said here before that it never made any sense to me to put an organization with a financial stake in the failure of contraception in charge of teaching contraception.

Abby Johnson’s comments illustrate the point.