David Axelrod is a Liar

Gina and David Axelrod Debate


…And David Axelrod proved himself to be a liar.

Here’s what happened:

Last night I asked David Axelrod a simple question, and of course, he gave me a typical politician answer, meaning…HE DID NOT ACTUALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION.

EDIT: Watch the video of me asking David Axelrod my question (courtesy 912 Delaware Patriots!)

Here’s my question: If the proposed public option provides adequate health care, then why do the health care proposals on the table provide federal subsidies for people to purchase private insurance? Additionally why is Obama saying that taxpayer money wouldn’t cover abortion when taxpayer money would be used for these federal subsides that help people purchase private plans that cover abortion?

I asked this question for a couple reasons:

1. If the public option is available to anyone who can’t afford private insurance, then why would the government continue to help poor people buy private insurance, when TAXPAYERS ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF THE PUBLIC OPTION?? Is it because the private plan would be superior to the public plan? Are they afraid the public plan would not be GOOD ENOUGH? Isn’t the whole idea to give people affordable, QUALITY, health insurance?

2. By asking the first question, I demonstrate how Obama is lying to the American people when he says that taxpayer funded abortion is a “fabrication”.  While tax money would not DIRECTLY fund abortion, tax money would be collected for FEDERAL SUBSIDIES for people to buy PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS which already DO COVER ABORTION. Therefore, YES, our tax money is going to ABORTION.

What David Axelrod said is misleading- he tried to tell me that taxpayer money is not currently being used and will not in the future be used to fund abortion in this country. Therefore, I asked him if he was referring to the Hyde Amendment which prohibits taxpayer funded abortions through Medicaid.

In hindsight, I’m kind of glad he brought up the Hyde amendment even though it wasn’t necessary to answer my question. It helps my argument anyway.

So according to the ACLU (a very pro-choice group, which is why I’m citing them right now, so you don’t call me biased) the Hyde amendment “excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid.

By the early 1980s, Congress had passed restrictions similar to the Hyde Amendment affecting programs on which an estimated twenty million women rely for their health care or insurance.  In addition to poor women on Medicaid, those denied access to federally funded abortion include Native Americans, federal employees and their dependents, Peace Corps volunteers, low-income residents of Washington, DC, federal prisoners, military personnel and their dependents, and disabled women who rely on Medicare.

New health initiatives are likewise being burdened by the legacy of the Hyde Amendment. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a program providing expanded health insurance for children aged 19 or younger, includes a ban on the use of federal funds for abortions unless the pregnancy endangers the teenager’s life or results from rape or incest.”

So what the Hyde amendment has done is set a precedent for other health care/insurance bills passed. Legislation similar to the Hyde amendment has been inserted into countless other programs, such as the CHIP program.

Now the problem with the current health care proposals is that they are outside the law of the Hyde amendment, meaning THE HYDE AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. And that’s fine, as long as there is similar Hyde-like language in the health care proposals, BUT THERE IS NOT.

When Axelrod asked me if I had read the bill, he was pointing out that NOWHERE in the legislation does it mention abortion. AND HES RIGHT! AND THATS THE PROBLEM! I don’t see any Hyde-like language in the bill. Furthermore, amendments such has the Hatch and Stupak, which overrule the Capps amendment (which allows private plans providing coverage for abortion to be purchased with federal subsidies called “affordability credits”-FactCheck.org), have been VOTED DOWN.

Now that’s not really a surprise, is it? If Obama and his cronies truly believed that no federal taxmoney be used to cover abortions, they would have had no problem passing the Hatch and Stupak amendments.

Therefore, the federal subsidies loophole exists. Without specific exclusion of abortion in the health care proposals, abortion services would fall under women’s health and reproductive services. Federal taxmoney would be funding abortion.

*DISCLAIMER: This whole debate centers on FEDERAL MONEY. I tried to make that clear. Currently, states can choose to follow or not to follow the Hyde amendment to varying degrees. For example, Delaware fully complies with the Hyde amendment (they don’t give women on Medicaid money for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. However Mississippi, for example, extends coverage if the baby has a fetal abnormality.)


For all the reasons described above:




This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s