Picture
By: Amy Lutz

Recently Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced a "grassroots" initiative urging women to blog about Obamacare. "Many uninsured Americans know little about how the law will affect them," said Sebelius. She couldn't be more right. Unfortunately for all Americans (women included), the "facts" (Or FACT as @BarackObama would put it) aren't all that accurate, given that they're filtered through the administration that passed the law in the first place. So, I urge real grassroots activists to fight back. The battleground is here and the time is now. We can not longer wait until the law goes into full-effect before we really work against it. The time is now.

Want to join #WomenAgainstObamacare? Take the following steps:

1.) Tweet under the hashtag #WomenAgainstObamacare the reasons why you're against the law. Here are a few suggestions
  • Aren't we taxed enough already? Obamacare adds more than $500 billion in new taxes. 
  • Obamacare raises insurance costs for young people, dramatically. 
  • You like your plan? Do you want to keep it? Too bad. 
  • Obamacare means fewer doctors
  • The law inevitably leads to layoffs
  • And there's MUCH MORE. Remember to educate yourself on the law.
2.) BLOG about it. Are you a woman against Obamacare? Then draft up a post and tweet it!

3.) Is your Representative or Senator dragging their feet when it comes to fighting Obamacare? Then contact them! The more constituents they hear from, the better. Dana Loesch provides a great list here.

Remember, you have to be the change you want to see in the world. Tired of the Democrats treating women like shills for their party (even though they can boast members like Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner)? Then do something about it. If you're a woman against Obamacare, then


 
 
Picture
By: Amy Lutz

Today is my birthday. However, I was treated to an early birthday present in the form of a wonderfully hilarious YouTube video. Over the weekend, this campaign video from Ryan Combe of Utah was plastered all over my Facebook news feed from my left leaning friends. So, naturally, I had to see what all the fuss was about. I wanted to fill my brain with the incredible liberal logic (an oxymoron, I know) that my friends claimed this video represented. While I couldn't locate the intelligent logic, I did enjoy the video, though perhaps not for the same reasons.

This campaign video details a conversation between a college-aged boy and his "Proud Republican" parents. At the onset of the video, the boy breaks the news to his parents that he is a Democrat. In false stereotypical fashion, both parents break into hysterics. Besides the comedic value, what I enjoyed about this campaign video was its reliance upon typical Republican stereotypes and flimsy liberal arguments. It's basically a minute and a half of the liberal platform complete with easily debunked planks. Naturally, I could not resist taking this video down a peg by taking on each of the son's flimsy liberal arguments about his party-switch. Arguments like this:

"I just want to help those less fortunate than I am."

I guess the implication here is that Republicans do not care about the less fortunate? Just because you have two different approaches toward relieving poverty does not imply that one side does not care about the poor. Ideologically, the main difference between conservative and liberal approaches to poverty is the source of the assistance. Liberals tend to believe that government should have a large hand in assisting the poor while conservatives put more of our stock into private charity. The conservative argument was clearly articulated long ago by Benjamin Franklin who stated, "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Perhaps that seems harsh to many liberals. However, it's nothing more than common sense. Conservatives favor "hand-ups" not "hand-outs." The liberal solution to poverty is perhaps more harmful to those living below that poverty line than the conservative solution. How will someone ever rise above their situation if they are made comfortable with numerous welfare handouts?

"I don't want my student loan rates to go up; but not at the expense of women and children's preventative healthcare."

This argument refers to a plan suggested by Republicans a few weeks ago designed to keep student loan interest rates from rising automatically on July 1st. The plan passed in the House includes taking the necessary funds from the portion of Obamacare known as the "Prevention and Public Health Fund." Clearly, this is an attempt to take down Obamacare piecemeal should it not be overturned by the Supreme Court. Regardless, this plan has faced opposition from people on the right and left, including from the Heritage Foundation. At least it's a solution. To place the blame for failure to reach a deal solely on Republicans is naive. One could just as easily argue that the ball in in the Democrats court and they have simply been standing on the sidelines. Where is their plan to solve the student loan crisis? For that matter, where's their budget? But I digress...While a deal perhaps needs to be made now, at least on a temporary basis, I contend that the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing student loans in the first place.  Government subsidized student loans both lead to increased education costs and a greater burden on taxpayers. Thus, you can imagine my extreme "delight" when I opened my financial aid package last summer only to realize that I was not 100% a client of the US government.

"We should tax the oil companies to better fund education."

This suggestion is indicative of most liberal arguments in a nutshell: Instill a punitive tax and then give the revenue from the tax to education. Adding education to anything, even tax hikes, makes people feel good about themselves doesn't it? However, this fallacy didn't stop President Obama from suggesting that Congress needs to end "Big Oil tax breaks." Well, give me a break. First off, according to an article in The Daily Caller last year, oil companies do not even receive tax breaks, at least not in the way that Democrats are portraying. Although oil is an industry just like any other industry, including those of "alternative" energy, they are often portrayed as enormous, corrupt monsters of death. Talk about vilifying success. Second, increasing taxes on oil companies will do more harm than good. Liberals might not want to admit this, but the oil industry is behind a lot of economic success right now. They have provided thousands of jobs to our fragile economy. What are the odds that no one in the oil industry will be laid off if the entire industry faces steep tax hikes? It's probably about the same as the odds of Barack Obama admitting he's wrong about. About anything. Also, you want energy prices to go up? Well, then by all means, tax the oil companies. "Big Oil" is less likely to drill for new sources of oil if they're being taxed to death. America is on a freeway towards economic demise. Next stop: skyrocketing energy costs.

"I believe that men and women in this country deserve equal rights and equal opportunities under the law."

I don't even know how to approach this one. However, I'm in a valuable position, being an "oppressed" woman and all, so let me take a stab at it. Sure, men and women face different treatment in the media, workplace, etc. but that's always been a fact and the street goes both ways. However, that's a social reality, not a legal reality. Based on law, men and women are equal. I'd like to enlighten my Democratic friends with the fact that it is 2012, not 1912. I can vote, run for office, and enter the workforce just like any man. The "War on Women," is just a construct created by the left in an attempt to get their socially liberal policies enacted. Just because I don't get free contraception and easy access to abortion doesn't mean I'm being oppressed or faced legal inequality.

"I don't think that if someone loses their job or gets sick that they should go bankrupt and lose their homes."

Sure, if this happens, it's unfortunate and sad. If people weren't so dependent upon the government, the maybe private charity could step in. However, this argument is not accurate. Most people who file for bankruptcy actually get to keep their homes. It's actually bankruptcy itself which gives people the option for a fresh start. However, for liberals, this is never good enough. They always want more and more government. But the more government programs we have, the more chance of there being abuse of the system. Our government already does do a lot for people who lose their jobs, and in the end it's not exactly a good thing. The number of weeks people can spend on unemployment benefits drastically increased last year. A safety net may be necessary, but 53 weeks of paid vacation is more like a safety bed.

"I believe in good, affordable healthcare for everyone."

Obviously, this statement implies that Republicans are against good and affordable healthcare because we oppose the destructive entitlement known as Obamacare. Rather, it's quite the opposite because Obamacare will provide healthcare that is neither good nor affordable. Thankfully (or perhaps, unfortunately) we have the "great" examples of socialized medicine in Canada and Europe to look forward to should Obamacare withstand legal scrutiny. You want good healthcare? Don't go to Canada or Europe. In the UK, a 3-year-old was denied a life-saving heart surgery because there were simply not enough beds available for doctors to perform the surgery. Another woman was denied treatment because she had the "audacity" to seek out a private doctor for relief to her crippling back pain after she had been on a waiting list for surgery for months. God forbid someone seek out the advice of a private doctor.

Neither is socialized medicine affordable. The health care system in Canada lost taxpayers approximately $3 billion dollars in 2011. That's just what our failing economy needs: another bloated entitlement. No wonder the UK is moving towards privatized healthcare. In addition, you know who's going to be the most injured by Obamacare? The youth (aka Obama's most powerful voting bloc). Young people typically pay much less for healthcare, but under Obamacare, we will have to pay much more to support the increased number of people on the government's dime. If Obamacare remains viable, our nation has nothing to look forward to but healthcare rationing, poor health care services, and an even further damaged economy.

At the end of this campaign video, Ryan Combe states, "Why aren't you a Democrat? It might not be as bad as you think." Well, if I have to judge the Democratic party based upon this video filled with inaccurate, insulting stereotypes and flimsy liberal arguments, then I'll pass. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority. This video is obviously targeted at the young and uninformed voters. Many, like my peers who seem enthralled by this video, fail to pick apart its terrible arguments. This video may be an insult to my intelligence, but I actually enjoy it. Very rarely do liberals put many of their unintelligent arguments in such a bite sized form. I'm glad I could get such a laugh from it. Now excuse me, I'm going to scout out my birthday cake and keep an eye on today's Supreme Court rulings.


 
 
Picture
By: Amy Lutz

            I agree with Michelle Obama. Kindof. I agree that the rising levels of obesity, heart disease and diabetes in this nation are troubling. Physical health is important to preserving a nation’s vitality. However, the progressive concept of government-led health programs (espoused by people like the First Lady and Michael Bloomberg) is not the most logical solution. If anything, it is dangerous to both our health and our freedom. Yet, it is not enough to simply criticize the liberal war on obesity. It’s important to provide an alternative. What if conservatives were in charge of combating this nation’s obesity epidemic? Then, what would our policies look like?

            For liberals and progressives concerned with this nation’s health (and rightfully so), government is always the answer. Shoveling money into programs like “Let’s Move,” banning unhealthy foods, and nudging Americans into eating healthy with subtle menu changes all fit into this plan. At its core, this plan is not even about health. It’s about control and as evidenced in a 2011 study from the British Medical Journal, the liberal war against obesity does not have a drastic impact on national health. People who respond to these nanny state policies by avoiding unhealthy food (whether it’s their choice or not) are not necessarily doing so because they are concerned with health. For example, I doubt many people in New York are going to avoid buying a 64 ounce Dr. Pepper because they’re concerned with calories. They will buy a smaller size simply because the 64 ounc-er isn’t available. It’s likely that when this regulation is inevitably eliminated, New Yorkers will run towards Big Gulps once again.

            You want to know the secret weapon against obesity? Well here it is: Personal responsibility.  When did we become a nation where eating well and exercising was too difficult? If eating a cheeseburger a day will make you fat, then don’t eat a cheeseburger a day. If you are unable to maintain a degree of self-control and a healthy lifestyle without the government’s help, then you’ve got a bigger problem on your hands. It’s not that I’m saying losing weight is easy. It is simply too complex to be universally covered by a one-size-fits-all government program. Some people struggle with health problems because of mental health issues. Others have hormonal imbalances. Some just simply haven’t developed a sense of self-control. Whatever the reason, the deeper issues that lead to an individual’s weight issues need to be addressed by a health professional. They cannot be alleviated by calorie counts on a menu or smaller soda sizes.

            While liberals are apt to claim that big businesses and capitalistic food supplies looking for a quick profit are the cause of the nation’s obesity epidemic, I tend to disagree. Most of the health problems in this nation are driven by a cultural decline. One hundred years ago, America was not the “pleasure-seeking” nation that we are today. We have become a nation where immediate gratification is praised and people just want the “easy way out.” Many run towards a quick fix; an option our government is more than willing to provide. Well, I hate to break it to you, but there is no “easy way out” when it comes to weight loss and health. It takes hard work and personal responsibility, characteristics that are less praised in our culture today. Don’t hand your freedom over to the government if you want to lose a couple pounds. It’s not worth it. It is naïve to turn to the government in search of an answer to our nation’s health crisis. Instead, look to yourself. Healthy lifestyles are propelled by internal, individual decisions. They cannot be artificially constructed by an external government program. Individual choices and personal responsibility succeed in propelling long term success. Government band-aids do not. 

 
 

By: Amy Lutz
I would like to post exactly what this health care plan means for abortions in this country:

*Here is a full transcript of HR 3590, the bill passed on Sunday:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

I personally have read the sections regarding abortion (sec. 1303 specifically) and plan to finish the entire bill at some point.

*The National Right to Life Committee recently released an analysis of HR 3590 and it was updated on March 18. I recommend that the entire article as well as the NRLC's letter to Congress be read.
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html

Here are the basic points of the article:
-The bill provides will allow direct federal funding for about 1250 community health centers. This provision (The Manager's Amendment) was added near the end of debate and Harry Reid immediately filed a cloture petition that limited debate on the provision. 
*There is no current legislation to prevent CHCs from performing abortions (except for the Hyde agreement to be discussed later). 
-The Manager's Amendment allocates $7 billion to the Community Health Centers.(Sec. 10503) Because these funds come directly from the health care bill, the funds will not be attached to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, a loophole exists because the funds are not covered under the Hyde Amendment. 
*The Hyde Amendment is a provision attached to the annual bill that prevents federal funds to be allocated to abortion (except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest)
-"There is already an organized effort underway by the Reproductive Health Access Project to encourage Community Health Centers to perform abortions, 'as an integrated part of primary health care.'” (http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/getting_started/faq.htm)
-President Obama recommended the $7 billion to increase to $11 billion on February 22
-Although CHCs do not provide a large amount of abortions, the Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP) is campaigning to increase the availability of abortions in CHCs. They suggest that practitioners mention to patients the availability of abortion services during individual examinations, which is in no way illegal.
-CHCs receive about 2/3 of their funds from the annual appropriations bill; therefore, they will still receive funds from outside sources that can potentially be used to provide abortions. 
-Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, receives millions of dollars from the annual appropriations bill. How it bypasses the Hyde Amendment, I am not entirely sure. Even if the funds are not directly allocated to abortion, this seems a little unconstitutional to me.
-There is nothing in the bill that specifically prevents any funds from being directed at abortion.

*The letter to the House of Representatives from the National Right to Life Committee provides more examples. The full text can be found here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetteronAbortionProvisions.html

*The National Organization for Women is pursuing a repeal of the Hyde Amendment
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/a-new-push-against-hyde-with-h.html?wprss=44

*Regarding the Executive Order issued by President Obama to keep federal funds from being allocated to abortion: (http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/21/obama-executive-order-on-abortion-funding/) and (http://lungren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=608&Itemid=86)
-Section 3 references the allocation of funds to CHCs, but restates that federal funds cannot be allocated for abortion under EXISTING law such as the Hyde Amendment. Again, since the $7 billion (or $11 billion) allocated for CHCs bypasses the Hyde Law, the executive order does nothing to change that. 
-Executive orders cannot override statutory law. Therefore, this morning when Obama signed HR 3590 into law, the executive order became almost completely null and void.
-Supreme Court precedence has proven that executive orders have been struck down in the past if they impeded statutory law. 
-An Executive Order cannot prevent insurance companies that pay for abortions from participating in the exchanges.
-Although Obama will probably not rescind the Executive Order in the near future, it still remains a possibility. Any of his successors can also rescind it if they so choose. I personally do not want an important issue such as abortion to depend on the whims of a single politician. 

So far, I have read parts of HR 3590, but not all. I will admit that the bill is confusing, difficult to read, and written almost completely in legal jargon so who knows exactly what is in it.