Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
June 19, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama ScandalWatch
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Matt Hadro's blog
  • Martin Bashir, Who Compared Conservatives to Hitler, Now Decries Nazi Comparisons
  • Bob Herbert: There Would Be Tons of Outrage on Left if Bush-Cheney Pursued Obama’s Policies
  • Liberal College Students Sign Petition to Make Spying on Fox News Legal
  • ABC Hypes Obama Family's 'Beautiful' Vacation, Avoids Any Hint of Extravagance
  • Piers Morgan Defends the Nanny State: 'People Need Nannying'
  • Liberal Pundit Marc Lamont Hill Condemns Photo of Obama Holding ‘Military Style’ Watergun
  • New Liberal Study 'Lends Credence to Conservative Charges' of Bias; Dramatic Media Tilt Toward 'Gay Marriage'
  • Senate Amnesty Supporters Boast Marco Rubio ‘Neutralized’ Limbaugh, Fox News

Flustered CNN Analyst Can't Fathom Why GOP Is Holding Out Over Planned Parenthood Funding

By Matt Hadro | April 08, 2011 | 15:45

A  A

On Thursday night's "Anderson Cooper 360," CNN senior political analyst David Gergen thought it an "outrage" for Republicans to shut down the government right now if Planned Parenthood is still funded. An agitated Gergen cast the amount of federal funding Planned Parenthood annually receives as "tiny," and failed to acknowledge that the Democrats are also contributing to the impasse by holding out for Planned Parenthood funding.

"It would be an outrage...for the Republicans to shut down the government on matter how much money we give to Planned Parenthood or how the EPA is funded," Gergen insisted.

Gergen repeatedly argued that the amount of funding Planned Parenthood receives is negligible, and the battle can be fought at another time.

"They can be settled elsewhere," he said of arguments over funding of Planned Parenthood and the EPA. "They're legitimate debates. They're legitimate subjects, but not central to the budget."

Former Tea Party leader and CNN contributor Dana Loesch was the only person in the segment to acknowledge that Democrats are part of the budget impasse, by holding onto Planned Parenthood funding.

"We wouldn't even be having this discussion if we had passed a budget a year ago," she claimed. Gergen agreed, but clearly put more of the blame on Republicans than Democrats for the Planned Parenthood standoff.

"You know perfectly well that the reason [Republicans] are trying to gut Planned Parenthood is they don't like it," Gergen told Dana Loesch on-air. "Same reason they're trying to, you know, gut National Public Radio. It doesn't spend a lot of money."

"How much is involved? How much is involved with Planned Parenthood in D.C.? How much is involved? It must be less than $500,000," he argued. Actually, when the House voted in February to de-fund Planned Parenthood, the measure sought to remove $330 million that would have been allocated to the organization through the end of September.

A transcript of the segment, which aired on April 7 at 10:07 p.m. EDT, is as follows:

ANDERSON COOPER: David Gergen, you have worked in White Houses, Republican White Houses and Democratic White Houses.

Do you believe the Democrats? Are they right in your opinion when they say, look, that the Republicans are trying to shut this government down basically based on social issues?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think they're partially right.

Anderson, there are so many outrages now that are accumulating over this whole controversy.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Is it normal to have discussion of greenhouse gases in a budget debate like this?

GERGEN: No, no, no. And it would be an outrage to shut down the government, for the Republicans to shut down the government on whether how much money we give to Planned Parenthood or how EPA is funded. Those are not central issues to the budget.

They can be settled elsewhere. They're legitimate debates. They're legitimate subjects, but not central to the budget. But, Anderson, the whole thing, this whole controversy has become an abject failure of leadership in the White House and in Congress. We should not -- great nations should not be on the brink of shutting down its government over a fairly trivial amount of money. David Walker is a former comptroller of the general, says -- points out this is a small fight. The big one is coming. This is a fight about paying, as David says, paying the bar bills on the Titanic.

(...)

COOPER: So David Gergen, how much does this then boil down to about politics on both sides, whether it's internal Republican politics or Democrats not wanting to look weak -- you know in front of Republicans going into this next budget battle?

GERGEN: It's all about politics. Increasingly it's about smelly politics.

Dana, I want to come back to this thing about Planned Parenthood. The reason for cutting Planned Parenthood because they're going to save money doing, you know perfectly well the amount of money involved is tiny, tiny, Planned Parenthood in D.C.

But let me ask you, you know perfectly well that the reason they're trying to gut Planned Parenthood is they don't like it. Same reason they're trying to, you know, gut National Public Radio. It doesn't spend a lot of money.

DANA LOESCH: Well, where's the refusal to make some cuts?

GERGEN: They just don't like it. There are a whole --

LOESCH: Wait.

GERGEN: Listen, there are a lot of cuts on the table. What I would like to ask you --

LOESCH: You're going to shut down the government over that?

GERGEN: Well, that's what I want to ask you. Are you --

LOESCH: You'll shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?

COOPER: Let him out. Let him out.

GERGEN: Will the Tea Party -- yes, that's what I'm asking you. Would the Tea Party punish members, Republicans who vote for a compromise that does not include a Planned Parenthood rider? Would you actually punish them if they -- if they vote for a compromise and keep the government open?

LOESCH: Well, I don't speak for the whole Tea Party.

GERGEN: Well, what is your personal view?

LOESCH: But I will say this. I speak for myself. I look at it like, if we're going to talk about the budget, we need to talk about cutting things. And if you want to make the stand on Planned Parenthood, you want to shut down the government, you want to actually target the salaries of our servicemen and women, who are overseas right now, where -- we just got into Libya, who are overseas right now, you want to target their salaries over one instance in Washington, D.C.?

COOPER: But, Dana, you're making it sound like --

LOESCH: That could be something that you could go to sleep with.

COOPER: But, Dana, I mean, you're making it sound like the Democrats are the ones who brought up this Planned Parenthood thing and they're the ones who are pushing this down people's throats. Democrats are saying, wait a minute, it's the Republicans who brought this up. You're the -- they're saying you're the ones who are making this the issue.

LOESCH: It was suggested as a cut. And can Democrats suggest other things that they would like to replace with that -- to cut? We have to start cutting somewhere. I reject the amounts from both parties. I think they're too small.

GERGEN: How much is involved? How much is involved with Planned Parenthood in D.C.? How much is involved? It must be less than $500,000.

LOESCH: That's irrelevant. Because you can say that with --

GERGEN: How is it irrelevant if the issue is --

(CROSSTALK)

LOESCH: Over time it adds up, though. Over time it adds up.

GERGEN: You know, if you want to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood --

LOESCH: Only in D.C. is a few million nothing.

(CROSSTALK)

GERGEN: I think you can guarantee if you want to shut down the government, if the Tea Party wants to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood --

LOESCH: It's not the Tea Party.

GERGEN: Well, but --

LOESCH: We wouldn't even be having this discussion if we had a budget passed a year ago.

GERGEN: That's true.

LOESCH: We wouldn't even be having this discussion.

GERGEN: I -- your point is well taken on that. I disagree with my good friend, Paul Begala on that. But the point of this is, if you really want to hand -- shut down the government over Planned Parenthood, don't you think there's a reasonable chance it will discredit the Tea Party?

LOESCH: Well, this isn't -- I don't think it's going to discredit the Tea Party at all. And again, I don't look at this as we're taking -- no one is taking a stand on Planned Parenthood. People are taking a stand on let's start cutting.

About the Author

Matt Hadro is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Matt Hadro on Twitter.
  • Dana Loesch
  • David Gergen
  • Matt Hadro's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop George Soros

Comments

Give Planned Parenthood the money - we'll discuss it later?

Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 3:57pm.

Wait a minute. If you pass a budget that funds Planned Parenthood ... that's different from postponing the issue. The Democrats want their cake and eat it too. They want to fund PP, but they don't want to fight about it. Well, no, that's not how it works. You can't claim that the Republicans are being intransigent, but then demand that PP get funding.

You can't say, just give me the money and we'll discuss it later. That's typical liberal politics, and watch how their enablers in the media let them get away with it.

  • Login to post comments

Great Point

Submitted by Dave81 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:09pm.

You also have to ask why, if it's "so little money", are they refusing the simply let it get cut for the sake of preventing a government shutdown? Honestly, I'd hate to see things like the military postal service get cut, but if it's "so little money", shoot...cut it and try to work it back in next year! Just get the ball rolling people!

Both sides are playing politics, but only one is getting blamed for it.

----- "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Thomas Jefferson
  • Login to post comments

Up Down Vote coming up. Help in 2012.

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:44am.

Up Down Vote coming up! May help in 2012 election. PLEASE write your Senator TODAY to vote against Federal funding of PP!!! Have them on the record for 2012!

snip: Good article!

While pro-lifers lament Planned Parenthood wasn’t defunded in the final 2011 budget, Harry Reid and Barack Obama threw 7 Senate Democrats under the bus in the process.

Reid and Obama agreed to let the Senate have an up or down vote on defunding PP. We already know such a vote will fail, since 41 Democrats signed a letter on April 4 saying they’d oppose such a measure, making it bullet-proof.

But House Majority Leader John Boehner’s strategy is to force so-called Democrat moderates to go on the record, potentially getting ammo for the 2012 elections.

Read more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/04/under-the-bus-the-planned-parenthood-c...

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

Can he figure out why the

Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:04pm.

Can he figure out why the Dems are holding out over Planned Parenthood funding?

  • Login to post comments

Over

Submitted by jaywl on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:10pm.

Gergen went over to the Dark Side a long time ago. CNN will forever introduce him as "Republican who served...Reagan, Bush...". Why Gergen as the conservative analyst?

  • Login to post comments

Advisor to 4 Presidents

Submitted by Jerry Mack on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:17pm.

Now, any and all readers know why George Bush did not retain Gergen as an advisor.

  • Login to post comments

Gergen is such a tool

Submitted by DaMav on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:29pm.

It is equally valid to state that the Democrats are ready to shut down the government just to fund Planned Parenthood. But Gergen frames the issue with complete bias.

  • Login to post comments

Since 1973, over 45 million legal abortions have been performed

Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:39pm.

...isn't about time we stop?

v

The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

  • Login to post comments

Dana vs Gergen, aka Chuck Liddell vs Peewee Herman

Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:39pm.

Some would call it predictable.

  • Login to post comments

It's not about the money,

Submitted by johnsonl on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:51pm.

it's about the government funding some entity that I don't want funded by tax dollars. Stop taking my money and giving it to people who don't earn it! It's that simple!!

  • Login to post comments

yes, but...

Submitted by wizardjr on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 6:02pm.

Actually there is no authorization in the Constitution for this spending on any NGO. None. Either you supply goods or services to the government or you go away. Abortion is not a Constitutional mandate so it is not a legitimate expense of the federal government. States could do it if they chose, but not with federal money.

  • Login to post comments

It is about the money

Submitted by Vic138 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 6:15pm.

During the runup to the vote on Obamacare they used the same arguments for its passage. In this economic environment we don't have the money to fund the same thing twice. Either pull stuff out of Obamacare, or defund planned parenthood.

  • Login to post comments

What's a couple a million babies

Submitted by donabernathy on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:56pm.

I WANNA C OLE FAITHFUL AND DA PANDAS' AT THE NATIONAL ZOO

RoFlMaO

  • Login to post comments

$317M

Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:59pm.

One dollar for each American.

How about shaving $317M from the $800B medicare/medicade budget line?

Or is this really about abortion after all?

  • Login to post comments

It was just red meat

Submitted by dgv on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 7:52pm.

For the base. That's why they caved.

  • Login to post comments

Gee

Submitted by donabernathy on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:01pm.

Guess them 50 million contributors and their offspring that we snuffed out starting in 1973 sure would come in handy on the tax rolls right about now.

roflmao

  • Login to post comments

especially since the 50

Submitted by fromphoenix on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:04pm.

@ donerbernathy
especially since the 50 million illegals are not paying any taxes

  • Login to post comments

weve got to ki11 our babies,

Submitted by fromphoenix on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:02pm.

weve got to ki11 our babies, or we wont have any stuff left for ourselves!!

  • Login to post comments

Gergen might want to revisit

Submitted by celator on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:03pm.

Gergen might want to revisit Michelle Malkin's December 9, 2009 column where she writes about the Planned Parenthood undercover video by Lisa Rose and her Action Team. His conscience needs to be awakened.

From Malkin's article about the video:

"The (Planned Parenthood) counselor then says, “A fetus is what’s in the uterus right now. That is not a baby.” Dr. Polhaska, the abortion doctor, insists, “It’s not a baby at this stage or anything like that.” Polhaska also states that having an abortion will be “much safer than having a baby,” warning, “You know, women die having babies.”

You can read Malkin's article and see the undercover video here:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/09/predators-of-planned-parenthood-pt-...

For Planned Parenthood, there will never be too many abortions. There's too much money to be made in the abortion mass murder enterprise (what else can you call it?) for them to give up the practice.

"This is not your mother's Democratic Party"--Andrew Breitbart, CPAC, February 2012
  • Login to post comments

oh the humanity

Submitted by Rackie on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:18pm.

"...a fairly trivial amount of money..."

"...the amount of money involved is tiny, tiny, ..."

"... National Public Radio. It doesn't spend a lot of money."

Then they won't miss it, will they? They will be just fine.

The pols will miss their kickback re-election contributions and a sympathic media to cover their lying ass.

  • Login to post comments

yeah

Submitted by MuckedOver on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:20pm.

I'm in the Navy, I have been for 11 years now. My next paycheck is half of what it should be because the Senate and the President insist on making tax payers pay for murdering the unborn. Keep my damned check. Sure I won't make my mortgage in about three months. But I'd rather not get paid than being forced into paying for killing children.

  • Login to post comments

I salute you, MuckedOver

Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:41pm.

.

  • Login to post comments

I second the salute.

Submitted by GrannyGrump42 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:42pm.

I second the salute.

  • Login to post comments

Thanks, for your service

Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:46pm.

and support!

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Dana ate Begala for lunch

Submitted by Ashrak on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:30pm.

twice in that segment.

Gergen was oblivious to the reality that it is Democrats holding on to the Planned Parenthood and willing to see government shut down over it.

Another point Dana made was about the excuse that everything is "tiny" and that we have to start somewhere.

Dana just ROCKS!

That an individual right exists requires that some policy positions be removed from the table of debate.
  • Login to post comments

Boehner says one thing. Reid another

Submitted by krendler on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:49pm.

Reid claims this impasse is all abut social issues (all the sudden).
Boehner says the $ gap is huge (what everyone would have predicted).

Not a huge Boehner fan but I trust that dishonest dullard Reid about as far as I can throw him.

The "public funding of abortion" thing is a last second ploy by Obama and company to make this about anything but what it actually is: dollars and too much spending.

  • Login to post comments

mañana, always mañana...

Submitted by wizardjr on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:55pm.

It's the same tired crap. We should wait for another "better" day to do this. Of course it never comes, does it David?

  • Login to post comments

If it isn't Planned Parenthood, the libs would be crying about..

Submitted by Prester John on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 6:16pm.

...education or the environment or AIDs research or transportation or the National Endowment for the Arts or.........

They only thing they'll cut without a fight is military spending.

Unless of course it affects their district.

Herman Cain 2012
www.hermancain.com

  • Login to post comments

He answers his own question by where he works.

Submitted by Hologram5 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:11pm.

He's a CNN anal yst and that is all the answer he requires. And no, we will NOT aquiesce to their demans.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  • Login to post comments

Because I want them to

Submitted by octavioj on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 8:12pm.

As an opponent of abortions I do not want federal tax dollars going to any organization that funds abortions. Just like one of my items on the check list for my vote is support for abortion. So I do not mind a bit funding Planned Parenthood if it did not provide abortions. As they do I want them cut off. Also if they did not provide abortions I might even consider donating directly to Planned Parenthood. So yes I want Planned Parenthood to be defunded.

  • Login to post comments

Holding military families hostage

Submitted by nkviking75 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 9:00pm.

The question the GOP should be asking, and asking often, is why the Dems are effectively holding our military families hostage so that they can pay for abortions at Planned Parenthood. And that is just exactly how they should say it. Democrats are willing to use the poor, the elderly, and children for their political advantage. Military dependents often include lower income folks and children. Democrats don't seem to mind depriving them.

“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

  • Login to post comments

Agree 100% Viking

Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 9:08pm.

Despicable tactics.

Absolutely shameful.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

You totally nailed it!

Submitted by GrannyGrump42 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:44pm.

"The question the GOP should be asking, and asking often, is why the Dems are effectively holding our military families hostage so that they can pay for abortions at Planned Parenthood. And that is just exactly how they should say it."

Amen.

  • Login to post comments

Dims and other liars

Submitted by russedav on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 9:25pm.

The Dims and media are simply such power-mad liars that even when in the minority they still are of such entitlement mentality (or lack of mentality) they imagine they're ENTITLED to govern, with or without a majority; Republicans on the other hand have been in the minority for so long they simply have no clue as to how to govern even when they have the majority, which is why Washington rightly said letting political parties into the government would destroy it; why we've even survived is solely a miracle from God.

  • Login to post comments

Funny -- the Dems are always

Submitted by GrannyGrump42 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:40pm.

Funny -- the Dems are always screaming about how they want the government to get out of people's crotches, but as soon as the Republicans aim to do just that -- get us out of other people's crotches -- Dems pitch a hissy fit.

  • Login to post comments

GOP holding out no more...Planned Parenthood to Receive Funding

Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:05pm.

This just in....a budget has been reached, and the Republicans caved on Planned Parenthood funding.


  • Login to post comments

The Repulicans have just

Submitted by MightyMouth on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:15pm.

The Repulicans have just proven they wont be able to get ANYTHING done! I know some of the Tea Party Repubs wont vote for the CR. But the rest of the party is worthless.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless my friend is more evil than my enemy."
  • Login to post comments

And these people are going to stop Obama in his tracks

Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:33pm.

Right.

We're sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed it's rediculous.

-Dave

Vote for the American in November

  • Login to post comments

Look at the bright side

Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:32pm.

Planned Parenthood continues to receive funding, but at least they're cutting $3 billion in military spending. And we're supposed to believe these cowards are going to defund Obamacare. One sign claiming Republicans want to kill women, and they'll cave like a cheap suit.

Mind boggling. Boner is pathetic.


  • Login to post comments

Disagree, you guys

Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:40pm.

John Boehner did the best that he could with what he had at this point. He got the better of the democrats, and their refusal to even consider the stand alone rider for military funding will be able to be used against the democrats with great effect.

He was able to force Dingy Harry to give him a separate up and down vote on Planned Parenthood funding in the Senate. This is going to force the democrats to take a side, and separate the wheat from the chaff. He's playing the long game here. Remember, the democrats have 23 Senate seats up in 2012. There are quite a few blue dogs and others like MO's McCasgill that are walking a fine line, whose voters are wanting fiscal sanity and are no fans of abortion. It's already passed in the House, now the Senate has to go on the record with a straight up and down.

The real fight is going to be over Ryan's budget. That's where we are going to have to go to the mattresses.

It's critical to get control of the Senate, and of course, to toss Dear Leader. He didn't help himself at all during this "crisis", he looked about as inept as a two year old. His little victory speech was pathetic. He was as useless as teats on a boar hog during these negotiations, pretending to be some sort of big leader while jetting off to fund raise. Big Loss for O & the Dems.

As Allen West would say, it was a shaping operation, preparing the battleground.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Disagree Blonde

Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:53pm.

I think the Repubes have been using this same tactic for about 30 years. The next time their going to puff out their chest?

As I recall, the last Budget extension 3 weeks ago we heard this crap. Oh next time, "we fight"?

Plant the Damn flag, and lets get this going. Before it is too late.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

No,

Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:00am.

I am not aiming for your ..it list.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

"The real fight is going to

Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:58pm.

"The real fight is going to be over Ryan's budget. That's where we are going to have to go to the mattresses."

And I have no doubt the Republicans will bend over on that mattress once Democrats claim Boner wants to kill women or something.

"He was able to force Dingy Harry to give him a separate up and down vote on Planned Parenthood funding in the Senate. This is going to force the democrats to take a side, and separate the wheat from the chaff."

They took a stand on PP with this budget. It will be no different on the up or down vote, not that that will ever come about anyway.

This was a loss, and it's the first of many to come. The Dems made Boner look like a fool.
 


  • Login to post comments

Hey, we're all entitled to our opinions.

Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:07am.

Looks like the House is going to vote on the compromise.

This will be interesting.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Maybe they got it done in time

Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:24am.

So the Obama;s can get their weekend plans back on track?  : ]

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

So

Submitted by Garlock on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 5:30pm.

I guess the fact that PP already cannot, by law, use federal funds for abortion services doesn't really matter? Somehow they're still using federal funding for abortion?

  • Login to post comments

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 10:09am.

Once again, the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll can't make a single post without LYING to your face. What is it like? What is it like to get BUSTED in a lie EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU COME HERE?

But under Section 1303, the tax credits are still used to pay overall premiums for health plans covering elective abortions. This violates the principle reflected in the second part of the Hyde Amendment, which forbids use of federal funds for any part of a health benefits package that covers elective abortions...

Since ObamaCare did not include a prohibition on funding for abortion and abortion coverage, no federal law prohibits abortion in high risk pools, and, to date, the Obama administration has not issued ANY guidance on abortion coverage in high risk pools.

The new health care reform law requires individual States to operate and maintain 'health insurance exchanges.' Health insurance plans offering abortion coverage are allowed to participate in a state’s exchange and to receive federal subsidies unless the State legislature affirmatively opts-out of offering these plans... If one chooses a plan that covers abortion, his or her tax credit cannot be used to directly pay for abortions; however, the tax credit subsidizes the insurance plan which covers abortions.

An executive order signed by the President on March 24, 2010 did not contain effective barriers to federal funding of abortion, and did not even mention the high-risk pool program."

++++

One Year Later, Abortion Funding in Obamacare Still a Concern
 

++++

ObamaCare Abortion Funding Has Begun

++++


The National Right to Life Committee reported that Pennyslvania’s high-risk health insurance program will offer citizens the first batch of Obamacare’s federal funding that can be used to pay for abortions, providing final confirmation that President Obama’s executive order to supposedly prevent this occurrence wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

++++

Maryland Becomes Second State to Offer Federally Funded Abortions under Obamacare

++++

Obamacare Covers Abortion in Pennsylvania — and in New Mexico, Too

  • Login to post comments

Ah, I see

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 12:43pm.

So if special interest groups, advocacy groups, and Republican committees say abortion is still covered by federal funds then it must be true, Q.E.D. Excuse me while I laugh out loud.

Let's take a look at what I found in your first source:

The Senate bill, like the House bill, prohibits the use of federal premium subsidies to pay for abortions that are not covered by Medicaid (that is, cases of rape and incest or of physical threat to the life of the mother); provides that the government cannot require health plans to cover abortion; prohibits health plans and federal agencies or state and local governments receiving federal funds from discriminating against providers because of their unwillingness to provide for, pay for, provide coverage for or refer for abortion; and leaves in place all state laws regulating abortion and federal law regarding conscience protection or willingness to provide abortion.  Neither bill affects abortion coverage through employment-based plans...

The Senate bill also prohibits the use of federal funds to purchase abortion coverage; plans that cover abortions must collect a separate privately-paid premium for abortion coverage that will be kept in a strictly regulated separate account.

++

The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered)...

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using Federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered).

++

The claim that the new federal health care law will use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions through 'high-risk pools' originated when the National Right to Life Committee issued a press release July 13. It said that Washington had approved a new insurance program that 'will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.' Abortion foes also raised alarms about similar federally subsidized insurance pools being put together in New Mexico and Maryland...

State and federal officials have since scrambled to clarify their intentions. Pennsylvania officials issued a statement on July 15 saying that for any abortions performed because of reasons other than rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s life, women 'will have to pay for them out their own pocket.' And New Mexico backed down just as quickly, issuing a July 15 statement saying 'elective abortion is not and has never been intended to be a benefit.'...

[W]hatever Pennsylvania officials intended, the stated federal policy is now clear: No abortions will be covered by the temporary risk pools except for those in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

++

But I saw what is really the issue when it comes to banning federal funds from being used to cover the premiums for plans that cover abortion, even if those plans are already barred from directly using the funds for abortion: it's because "[...]money is fungible, so the addition of federal funds to existing state programs will free up state money to pay for more murder in (or even partly out of) the womb."

That may be a valid concern, but if conservatives are truly troubled by this issue of fungibility regarding federal funds, then maybe they should also apply that to federal funding for faith-based initiatives. We wouldn't want people to think there was a direct connection between the government and religion, or that the government was supporting a religion, would we? Maybe that's a bad analogy, because I imagine you probably would want that.

 

  • Login to post comments

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll doubles down on his lie.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 1:24pm.

Garlick the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll's ORIGINAL LIE: ...PP already cannot, by law, use federal funds for abortion services...

COPYING LIES TO COVER YOUR LIES IS STILL LYING.

NEWSFLASH FOR THE RETARD GARLOCK, YOUR SIDE LIES A LOT.

JUST

LIKE

YOU.

YOUR

LIE

STANDS.

  • Login to post comments

I don't understand

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 1:29pm.

How come you can cite several things from a source as proof that you're right, but when I try and cite several things from the exact same source, I'm still lying? Does that make any sense?

  • Login to post comments

That will be $100. I accept PayPal.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 2:15pm.

Update: I now accept Visa from the First Bank of Troll now that they have stopped funding the Diapers for Trollies charity.

$100 basic fee to school your little troll.

$25 extra to point out items of common sense to your little scratchy idiot.

  • Login to post comments

Haha

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:17pm.

Yet again, you give up when faced with something you can't answer and when you know you're wrong. I love it.

  • Login to post comments

Whoops.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 11:30pm.

Vicious little liars forget. There are 100 people spouting the truth for every one that lies. See below.

That will be an extra $1.00 for teaching you that little witticism. I taped a note to your jacket. Make sure mumzietroll sees it when you get home.

  • Login to post comments

duplicate

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 1:30pm.

.

  • Login to post comments

That will be $10. I accept paypal.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 2:19pm.

The Vet runs a side business of teaching trolls how to use a mouse as well as running the Troll Education School.

Or go here if you cannot afford the $10 ---->

Learn the difference between clicking once and twice and why the monkeypeople differentiate between the two.

  • Login to post comments

GtSLGT spits in your face and tells you it is raining.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:15pm.

The most vicious LYING troll now that j. frank wilson is gone.

The answer is yes, Obamacare did mark a significant expansion of abortion. It violated one plank of the “Hyde Amendment principles” (Hyde itself does not apply, since Obamacare is funded outside of Health & Human Services appropriations): no federal funding of insurance plans that provide abortions. The state exchanges established under Obamacare will certainly include plans that cover abortion. These plans will receive federal subsidies, thus violating Hyde principles. The meaningless “restriction” in the law is that the subsidies go to the insurance provider, not the individual, and that the abortions are paid for from a pool established by mandatory monthly payments by insurees. And even this restriction lapses if Hyde itself is not renewed (it is subject to yearly renewal).

+++

Congressional Research Service: Obamacare Allows Abortion Funding

The Department of Health and Human Services sets the guidelines for the operation of the high-risk pools, but according to CRS, those guidelines "neither explicitly provide the authority to cover elective abortions with federal funds, nor do they specifically prohibit the use of federal funds."

In response, 13 Republican Senators have sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, urging her to issue regulations that would prohibited federal tax dollars from covering abortion through the high risk pools.

+++

Under Obamacare, abortions will, in fact, be covered

If the federal government is not going to be involved in paying for abortions, then someone better tell the Pennsylvania Insurance Department because they sure as heck think the feds will be covering abortions in their state.

~

All that hoopla about signing an executive order to placate the Stupak Democrats, was what we suspected all along. Obama lied.

+++

When Congress passed and Obama signed the legislation for the federal government program, the bill contained numerous loopholes allowing for taxpayer funding of abortions under the law. However, it did contain a provision allowing states to opt out of using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions in their state exchanges.

+++

The only real abortion restriction in Obamacare was in fact removed before the President signed the bill into law. This was the so-called “Stupak-Pitts Amendment”, named after Democrat Bart Stupak and Republican Joe Pitts, that was inserted into the House version of the bill. This amendment applied the Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions, which forbids certain Health and Human Services (HHS) funds from being used to pay for abortions, to Obamacare.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was necessary because the original bill did not include any blanket restriction on using taxpayer funds for abortion. Neither did the original Hyde Amendment suffice (despite what Harry Reid has claimed), since Obamacare creates lots of new pathways for sending money directly to various health care projects, bypassing HHS and the Hyde Amendment restrictions altogether. (We will talk about these in a minute.)

The problem was that the Senate version of the bill contained no abortion restrictions. But instead of putting pressure on the Senate Democrats to add the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to their version of the bill, the Obama administration chose instead to place enormous pressure on the House to take this language out of their bill. In the end, nearly all the House Democrats, including the small “pro-life” contingent, did as they were told. As a result, there are no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself.

++++

In Rep. Dahlkemper’s own Keystone State, the federal government on June 28 approved rules governing $160 million in federal taxpayer money for a “high risk” insurance program that will - repeat: absolutely, positively will - cover just about any abortion before the 24th week of pregnancy. The Pennsylvania plan submitted to the feds provides coverage for “only” those abortions that satisfy certain state laws. But the key, applicable state law allows abortion if a single doctor decides it is necessary for reasons that include psychology, emotions or the woman’s age.

+++

Dangit. My linker burnt out again. There is so much more boys and girls. Only a vicious LIAR like Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll continues to spit in your face and tell you he ain't lying to you.

  • Login to post comments

Boys and Girls

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:26pm.

It's like The Vet just totally ignores citations I give,from his own source!, that refute his points. Moreover, I've already caught LifeNews saying misleading things, so forgive me if I don't trust what they have to say.

  • Login to post comments

Told ya.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:47pm.

Prove the vicious little liar is spitting in your face. The best he has is to quote other liars or stand there and tell you that is rain dripping off your face not his spit.

 Iz quote a perfesser spouting off on a BILL not iz law. Zatz proof in trolliztown! Iz quote from Excetix Order form Persident that attempts to fix law. Iz proofies! Iz say "I iz no lie" proofies. Merkel! Soros! Poop on the floor!

You lied again trollie. And you got busted again. LIVE WITH IT. Or come here with a substantial source instead of a bunch of your fellow travelers spitting in our face as well. But yeah, no one with a real name and reputation to protect will repeat your lies will they?

Now. Pay me. Because I am here to prove you LIED. Not have a six page conversation with you where all you do is repeat "I iz no lie" over and over again.

  • Login to post comments

This post made zero sense

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:06pm.

Zero.

  • Login to post comments

scorecard

Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:26pm.

The Vet: 7

Dunce: 0

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

This post is typical.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:37pm.

Of the whining whimpering sissy that won't source any thing and has been busted in 72 lies.

Or-bumpa-Or-bumpa-Or-bumpa

What in the name of... LOOK OUT! It's the wayback machine!


29. Stupid By "Administration" I'm generally referring to government as a whole. --- Presidential Administration refers to the Executive Branch not the entire government. Stupid Lying Garlock Troll redefines another word.

Wait. 2 pages are stuck together.


33. So then, stuff like "Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Obama is a 'socialist'" --- Presents a poll from a company Markos Moulitsas is suing because they LIE.


The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.


72 lies and stupid from Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.

  • Login to post comments

And that, Garlock, is your problem---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 4:08pm.

"Boys and Girls".

NewsBuster's patrons do not represent your run-of-the-mill unfocused group.

Being retired, I both have the time, and take the time, especially if I decide to give another poster grief over a particular subject, to read the information presented by the opposition.

The Vet beats you down with sources and you wail about not being accorded equal facility with that same source.

Do you not see, Garlock, that your interpretations of that identical material come across as slanted because they are?

I have been reading your stuff for quite some time now, and I will give you this:

You are consistently inconsistent, and while admitting you have made an error is laudable, exactly how many do-overs do you feel are warranted before the shine comes off the "You caught me" trophy?

That you keep coming back for more is deserving of a bit of wonder, if nothing else, at your ability to hone in on a subject while generally ignoring the truth bombs going off all around you.

Your extremely feeble attempts to lay it off on encomiums for The Vet and his sources being accepted as his due, while you are dismissed for the same source, merely underscores your partisan bias in assuming that all here are biased in The Vet's favor.

That is not necessarily 100% correct.

While I am completely in favor of The Vet, versus any and all liberal trolls, I would be completely against any and all liberal trolls, while in the midst of a beat down; irrespective of the identification of the individual whackin' them.

It is foolish to come into a conservative's house, and then whimper about not having the rules either made to order for you, or interpreted as you would have it.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Thanks for the evaluation

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:26pm.

First off, I only used the phrase "Boys and Girls" because Vet uses it all the time, including in the post to which I was replying.

Secondly, how does this even make sense?:

The Vet beats you down with sources and you wail about not being accorded equal facility with that same source.

Do you not see, Garlock, that your interpretations of that identical material come across as slanted because they are?

He throws sources in, I throw sources in. But how is it that my "interpretations of that identical material come across as slanted" when all I did was copy/paste from the source just as Vet did? They're not my "interpretations", they're exactly what was in the article. The article that Vet cited first. It's an EGREGIOUS double standard if what Vet cites from a source is true, but what I cite from the same source is not true. You should be ashamed of yourself if that is your sentiment on the evidence I present.

You talk about my partisan bias, right before saying you're completely against "any and all liberal trolls." That makes perfect sense.

Yes, I have come into a conservative's house. I don't expect to have the rules made to order for me. I just simply wish to play on a level playing field, where my sources are just as good as Vet's sources (which are often opinions from other conservative websites), and where Vet sometimes admits he's wrong about something instead of simply going off on some bizarre angry rant accusing me of lying over and over again while disregarding all the evidence that refute his claims.

  • Login to post comments

And what type of sense, Garlock, issues from ---

Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 11:27pm.

 a statement put thusly:

"I. MD, am against any and all liberal trolls, and I assure you that any and all liberal trolls are biased beyond belief, but trust me, I ain't biased" - ?

It is ridiculous to expect, and you most certainly will never get, the level playing field you aspire to if you DO NOT present initial bona fides, debate points, talking points, links and sources, that are free of misstatements, errors (whether of commission OR omission), and flat out falsehoods.

The fact that you cannot recognize on your own that you have been remiss with damn near every one of these check off items since day one around here is obvious to all but yourself.

Why do you suppose that is? 

Do you not read, break down, and attempt to comprehend what you have or are being called out for?

Any same source verifiable fact can not be used to prove both sides of an argument without the wildest of interpretable twists, turns, and gyrations.

That is precisely what you try and do, and when nailed for it, you slither off in a different direction and then come back for another assault on logic from an opposite compass point.

Source material cannot support, while at the same time rebuking, the same side of a debate.

It would be illogical.

MD          

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

It would be illogical

Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:47am.

Unless the source material was presenting both sides of the argument, like the source Vet cited. Then it's pretty easy to find stuff that supports and rebukes the same side of the debate.

Also, I very much enjoy this line you give here: "It is ridiculous to expect, and you most certainly will never get, the level playing field you aspire to if you DO NOT present initial bona fides, debate points, talking points, links and sources, that are free of misstatements, errors (whether of commission OR omission), and flat out falsehoods."

That's ironic, because that's exactly what Vet often does. Or maybe you just glance over his stuff while thoroughly examining mine, so you don't notice. Who knows.

Moreover, I DO present initial bona fides, links, and sources that are free of misstatements, errors, and flat out falsehoods. There are numerous times where I cite/link CBO documents, WSJ articles, and original research directly. Did you miss those?

There are also numerous times, including on this very thread, where Vet cites articles that are conservative op-eds that lack any citations/sources themselves. Where's your push to make him use more reliable information too?

  • Login to post comments

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll admits he lies.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 11:28am.

75. ...I DO present initial bona fides, links, and sources that are free of misstatements, errors, and flat out falsehoods. --- Yeah. 74 lies and stupid already documented. Not a single one shown to be in error with a valid source and many were outright lies brought from somewhere else. But trollies sure do like to claim they got the bona fides don't they?


The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.

Now up to 75 lies and stupid chock full of bona fide lies, links to trollie lies, and lying sources that trollies love so much. Completely free of trollie misstatements, stupid errors, and flat out trollie falsehoods. And yet oddly, not a single one of the 75 lies and stupid has been shown to be false by the 75 time liar Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll or anyone else for that matter.

  • Login to post comments

Thanks

Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 5:56pm.

"And yet oddly, not a single one of the 75 lies and stupid has been shown to be false by the 75 time liar Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll or anyone else for that matter."

Thanks for proving my point!

  • Login to post comments

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 6:33pm.

Isolating a sentence out of a paragraph to make it appear different then the point of the paragraph is another form of a lie. You certainly are good at that.

Now you deliberately LIE to make it personal just like EVERY TROLL EVAH when they get busted in a lie.

You know as well as everyone that read the paragraph that sentence was referring to the LIES I LISTED about you.

 

NO ONE HAS SHOWN THE LIES AND STUPID I LISTED ABOUT YOU TO BE FALSE.

 

NOT A SINGLE SOUL HAS PROVED I WAS WRONG IN THAT FORUM.

 

NO ONE.

 

Frell you troll for trying to deliberately misrepresent what I said.

NOW

YOU

DELIBERATELY

LIE

ABOUT

ME.

A  D.E.L.I.B.E.R.A.T.E  L.I.E.

 

 

Boy that sure did work out for you. Didn't it? Always nice to come here and deliberately lie about another user. Too bad they get to respond. Dang the bad luck.

  • Login to post comments

Actually

Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 6:53pm.

That paragraph wasn't very clear. You even say earlier, "Yeah. 74 lies and stupid already documented. Not a single one shown to be in error with a valid source and many were outright lies brought from somewhere else."  Are you talking about the lies, or the documentation of the lies? It wasn't clear. But thank you for clearing that up for me now.

By the way, in reference to your 75th documentation of one of my "lies and stupid," I can make lists too. Here's one documenting all the times I present a valid source, "initial bona fides, links, and sources that are free of misstatements, errors, and flat out falsehoods":

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/doug-ernst/2011/01/06/hollywood-liberal-ash...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/doug-ernst/2011/01/06/hollywood-liberal-ash...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2011/01/06/networks-out-step-...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/david-limbaugh/2011/01/25/think-obamas-movi...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/24/abc-blames-global-...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/24/abc-blames-global-...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/24/abc-blames-global-...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/david-limbaugh/2011/01/25/think-obamas-movi...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/02/28/open-thread-heritage-an...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/02/28/open-thread-heritage-an...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/02/28/open-thread-heritage-an...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/02/28/open-thread-heritage-an...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/03/31/soros-grantee-aids-so...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/03/23/cnncom-notes-unpopu...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/03/23/cnncom-notes-unpopu...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/03/23/cnncom-notes-unpopu...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/15/telling-far-left-...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/15/telling-far-left-...

  • Login to post comments

Checking... Checking... Checking...

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 7:48pm.

As I do not see $100 in my PayPal account, looks like I don't have to care anymore. Did not click on nor read a single link. Now cry all the way home to mumzietroll and tell here to send that $100.

Idiots tell DELIBERATE PERSONAL LIES and then expect us to care.

Wow.

Lie 75 STANDS. For every time you linked to a valid source to back up your point, you have 2 links to other people lying, and 3 unsourced lies and stupid

Oh and hey Stupid, yes, you. LEARN HOW TO LINK. It goes like this ----> Look at Stupid here. <----- a proper way to link to a big fat long long long HTTP URL.

  • Login to post comments

I do know how to link

Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:42pm.

You'd know that if you actually read my posts. It's clear as day. I just didn't feel like doing it for that post.

I don't know how #75 still stands. I just showed you a bunch of examples that refute your assertion that I don't give valid sources.

  • Login to post comments

Is mumzietroll doing this on purpose?

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:49pm.

There is a note taped to your coat for mumzietroll. Either she pays me the $100 or I start slapping the stupid out of her troll then toss him out on his crusty wart covered butt.

I said pay me. I do not educate trolls for free.

And tell mumzietroll she still owes me for having to delouse the classroom after you came in. $25

  • Login to post comments

Education

Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 2:48am.

I love how you have no qualms about "educating" me about myriad topics using numerous sources and quotes, yet when I say something that you can't refute, suddenly you seize up and insist you "do not educate trolls for free." Consistent, eh?

  • Login to post comments

Here is how you will know when I care again.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:02am.

I will be waving around a receipt and telling you to bring it to mumzietroll.

  • Login to post comments

Garlock admits to trolling.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 10:06pm.

iz not trolliz. honext. is cross 2 heartz, iz mean 1 heartz like monkeezpipplez. Yez. Yez. Iz monkeepipple. Not trolliz. Rilly.

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: I just didn't feel like doing it for that post.

Surprise. We don't feel like giving you the tiniest sliver of respect. Now why would we do that? Hmmmm. Boy. Just can't think of a reason right now. Hmmmmm.

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: I just didn't feel like doing it for that post.

  • Login to post comments

"Admits to trolling"

Submitted by Garlock on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 2:45am.

Since when did "trolling" become "not making links in the exact format the Vet wants them"?

You never cease to amaze me, Vet.

  • Login to post comments

Here is how you will know when I care again.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:01am.

I will be waving around a receipt and telling you to bring it to mumzietroll.

  • Login to post comments

Hey, is that Garlock's spit running down your face?

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 4:08pm.

   The vicious unrepentant 66 time LAIR continues his lie.

+++

Ten Ways Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare Funds Abortion
 

1. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare will directly fund community health care centers, of which Planned Parenthood would be a beneficiary. $11 billion has been set aside for community health care centers with no restrictions to prevent abortion coverage. Abortion advocates are already discussing how these centers can pay for abortion.

2. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare will subsidize health care plans which provide abortion for tens of millions of people. Plans may not be required to do so, but they are NOT prohibited from doing so.

3. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare contains an abortion mandate. At least one government subsidized health care plan in every area will be required to cover abortion.

4. Enrollees in these government subsidized insurance plans will be required to pay an abortion surcharge whether or not they agree with abortion

5. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare gives bureaucrats authority to force health care plans to cover abortion. It does not mandate that they do so, but it gives them the authority.

6. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare allows states to opt out of abortion covering plans, but even where that may happen, residents of those states will still be required to pay for abortions in other states.

7. There are other massive pools of money with no abortion restrictions. National Right to Life says that Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180).

8. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare allows plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program to cover abortion.

9. There is no restriction on abortion in the Indian Health program.

10. Language in the Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare that restricts direct funding (not to be confused with subsidies) of abortion would be attached to the status of the Hyde amendment. That is, if the Hyde amendment-which only covers Medicaid abortions- continues to be reauthorized every year, direct funding restrictions in the health care reform law will remain in place. If the yearly approved Hyde amendment were to not pass, those restrictions of direct funding of abortion through health care will vanish.

  • Login to post comments

Excellent source there, Vet

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:08pm.

An opinion piece from a conservative website that doesn't cite any source/facts. Great source, Vet, great source.

  • Login to post comments

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:28pm.

As usual, Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll does not come here with ONE SINGLE SOURCE to back up his lies but instead pisses, whines, moans, whimpers, and cries like a little sissy about the sources of others.

  • Login to post comments

Say, your face is awful wet. Should I use a jacket when I go out

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 4:37pm.

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: ...PP already cannot, by law, use federal funds for abortion services...

Obamacare DID NOT prohibit abortion funding DID NOT.

+++

The Obamacare Abortion Lie Is Up

After NRLC, NR, the House Republican leader, and others highlighted this from the Pennsylvania and New Mexico plans this week, the Department of Health and Human Services finally issued a release yesterday assuring that they will, in fact, issue guidelines forbidding abortion coverage in the Obamacare federally funded PCIP state programs.

And today, the National Women’s Law Center, among others, are upset with the administration for saying they’ll do such a thing. 

Which means the lie is up: Obamcare never prohibited abortion funding. It’s a matter of administrative discretion.

The Obama administration and other Democrats have been hawking the myths that 
a) there is some kind of global Hyde amendment that forbids all federally funded abortions and b) the executive order solves all problems.

If a and b were true, how were any state plans approved that were covering abortions?

The truth of the matter is that news today that Maryland was planning on funding abortions in their high-risk pool is but the tip of the iceberg. Don’t be surprised if another story drops. And if it’s not a high-risk pool. And the administration will have to provide a new myth or actually act — as HHS is saying it plans to — to prohibit that which is not currently prohibited.

But don’t expect them to admit they’ve been lying to us all this time.

  • Login to post comments

That leads us to the 3rd of the cons from the pro/con article

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 4:45pm.

The vicious 66 time LIAR comes here and pulls 3 cons from one of my 20 links here as proof of something.

The first one was from a Professor talking about the Senate Bill not the final law.

The second was from the worthless Executive Order from President Obama attempting to fix the law AFTER it was signed. Now why would the President issue an executive order if the law banned abortion funding? Hmmmmmm.

The third is from factcheck.org saying the words of the HHS are now the law of the land. Wrong.
Which means the lie is up: Obamcare never prohibited abortion funding. It’s a matter of administrative discretion.

Only a 66 time LIAR like Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll would expect his entire line of defense to come from a few unsourced people on one website.

  • Login to post comments

Hmmm

Submitted by Garlock on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:14pm.

1) I believe the Professor was talking about the Senate bill, the version that became law.
2) The PPACA didn't have to explicitly ban abortion funding...the Hyde Amendment is already in place. The Executive Order he gave clarified things. The HHS guidelines are to do just that...clarify things and set rules. I'm sure HHS didn't have many problems in the past setting guidelines to be followed. And if Executive Orders are meaningless, then why have numerous other presidents used them?
3) Again, if I can't cite from the same source you use, then what good is the source? It's quite the double standard that what you cite from the source is true, whereas what I cite from the same source is false. An egregious double standard.

  • Login to post comments

Phweet. Stupid missed the other 24 sources.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 8:26pm.

Stupid focuses on one source that had a truth versus lies column.

72. ...PP already cannot, by law, use federal funds for abortion services... - LIE. Obamcare never prohibited abortion funding. It’s a matter of administrative discretion.


The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock

  • Login to post comments

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 11:46pm.

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll: ...if Executive Orders are meaningless, then why have numerous other presidents used them?

Not what I said. Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

I said ONE executive order was useless.

The Vet: ...worthless Executive Order from President Obama...

The LIAR now tries to make it appear I said ALL.

That is number 73 LIAR.

73. ...if Executive Orders are meaningless, then why have numerous other presidents used them? --- I mentioned ONE executive order. The LIAR changed it to make it look like I dismissed all of them.

 

Unlike you the lying vicious little child snit. I don't just make up lies about others.

Obama's executive order on taxpayer-funded abortions: Not worth the paper it was secretly written on (Rep. Phil Roe)

Since an executive order, even one by a Democrat, cannot trump law, the result is abortions still can be covered under today's bill.

About that Worthless Executive Order

Why Executive Orders are Worthless against Legislation

  • Login to post comments

This is classic

Submitted by Garlock on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:37am.

Vet gets upset at me regarding Executive Orders:

"I said ONE executive order was useless. The LIAR changed it to make it look like I dismissed all of them."

Then Vet immediately cites a source entitled "Why Executive Orders are Worthless against Legislation." Notice the plurality of the phrase "Executive Orders."

  • Login to post comments

Garlock the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 11:14am.

73. ...if Executive Orders are meaningless, then why have numerous other presidents used them? --- I mentioned ONE executive order. The LIAR changed it to make it look like I dismissed all of them.

      73.1 Tries to claim his lie is vindicated because I linked to an article that states executive orders do not trump actual law AFTER I busted him in his original lie.

74. Vet gets upset at me... --- Trollies sure do have a lock on the emotional state of others don't they?
 

  • Login to post comments

I lost track. This is now officially the 72nd LIE from GtSLGT.

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 5:13pm.

72. ...PP already cannot, by law, use federal funds for abortion services... - LIE. Obamcare never prohibited abortion funding. It’s a matter of administrative discretion.


The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll.

Officially the most prolific lying troll now that j. frank wilson is gone.

  • Login to post comments

One more for you Vet

Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:08am.

Score card

the Vet 925,547

Garlock : 0

Although most abortion patients had some type of health insurance, 57% paid out of pocket for this service (Figure 4). The second most common payment method was Medicaid, reported by 20% of abortion patients; in fact, in states that use their own funds to pay for abortions, 92% of patients with Medicaid coverage made use of this payment method.

Be on the lookout for random acts of journalism from the MSM~h/t Rush

We Are The 53%

  • Login to post comments

Isn't it interesting that many Black leaders support

Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 8:41pm.

Planned Parenthood abortions and the genocidal abortions among Blacks. In 2008 Fox News reported that in the year 2000:

"while blacks made up 17 percent of live births, they made up more than twice that share of abortions (36 percent). If those aborted children had been born, the number of blacks born would have been slightly over 50 percent greater than it was. [...] The comparison with whites and other minorities is striking. Whites made up 78 percent of live births, but only 57 percent of abortions."

Let's remember that the historical foundation of Planned Parenthood is attributed to socialist Margaret Sanger, who was dedicated to "racial Aryan purification" Here are excerpts from Wikipedia:

  • In 1926 Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.
  • "Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924."
  • "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
    • Login to post comments

    Read my lips, David Rodham Gergen: It has something ...

    Submitted by jawebster1 on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 1:23am.

    to do with ABORTION!

    Jim Webster
    • Login to post comments

    Gergen Believes Abortion Sacred, Jews Should Be Nervous

    Submitted by Avitar on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:30am.

    When the deaths of 50 million American citizens before they are born is a matter to be postponed shows a complete distortion of priorities. The use of Taxpayer money to continue the practice makes the Government use of taxpayer money to ration medical care in Obamacare a naked threat to all Republicans and most independents.
    That statue that the progressives put up a few years back where they say they want only 500 million people left alive on earth becomes an open desire to kil over 90% of the earth's population and the declaration of the Jewish towns in Isreal as "illegal" is a decalration of war.

    • Login to post comments

    Can't figure it out can he???

    Submitted by Patriot II on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 10:43am.

    When he stands before the God of Creation and sees what Almighty God thinks of those that murder his babies....maybe then this airhead will understand!

    • Login to post comments

    It's official.

    Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:55am.

    Now at #3 in the search rankings.

    Google: lying troll.

    • Login to post comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

    Editors' Picks

    • Romney's revenge (Avik Roy @ NRO)
    • Relax, the Arizona voter registration ruling was narrowly drawn by Scalia (Hans von Spakovsky)
    • Snowden loses his moral authority with dangerous leaks (Rothman @ Mediaite)
    • Rapper Lil' Wayne stomps on American flag (Rare)
    • Apple releases information about data requests from NSA, other agencies (LA Times)
    • Five myths about privacy (Solove @ Washington Post)
    • Polls show Americans more libertarian on pot, gay marriage, guns (Barone)
    • Single men are opting out of society thanks to suffocating liberalism (Right Wing News)
    • What if Superman had to join a union? (Steven Crowder)
    Chuck Norris's picture
    Chuck Norris
    Chuck Norris Column: The Superman of Dads and Grads
    Cal Thomas's picture
    Cal Thomas
    Cal Thomas Column: Broadcast Nets, Ailes Is What's Good for You
    Ann Coulter's picture
    Ann Coulter
    Coulter Column: If the GOP Falls for 'Immigration Reform' Ruse, It Deserves to Die
    Walter E. Williams's picture
    Walter E. Williams
    Walter E. Williams Column: Let People Sell Their Organs to Sick, Needy Recipients
    Michelle Malkin's picture
    Michelle Malkin
    Malkin Column: Anthony Weiner's Underage Girl Problem
    More >

    RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

    Stop Censoring The News!

    Audit the Man of Steel?!
    more cartoons
    • O’Reilly: Obama Could Be Impeached If Evidence Shows Intel Agency Read Emails Without Warrant
    • Christie: Obama’s ‘Charm Offensive Should Have Started January 2009’; ‘Bit Late in Dating Game’
    • Howard Stern to Jimmy Fallon: ‘How You Got The Tonight Show I Don't Know. You Barely Beat Craig Ferguson’
    • Rand Paul: ‘I Want to Go From 5% of the African-American Vote to At Least 20-25%’
    • Chris Cuomo Claims He’s ‘Completely Divorced From Ideology’ While Talking Up ‘Advocacy Journalism’
    More >
    NewsBusters

    Executive Editor
    Matthew Sheffield

    Editor at Large
    Brent Baker

    Senior Editors
    Tim Graham
    Rich Noyes

    Managing Editor
    Ken Shepherd

    Associate Editor
    Noel Sheppard

    Contributing Editors
    Tom Blumer
    Geoffrey Dickens
    Dan Gainor
    David Limbaugh
    Mithridate Ombud
    Clay Waters
    Scott Whitlock

    Senior Contributor
    Mark Finkelstein

    Contributing Writers
    Matthew Balan
    Michael M. Bates
    Erin R. Brown
    Jack Coleman
    Kyle Drennen
    Douglas Ernst
    P. J. Gladnick
    Stephen Gutowski
    Matt Hadro
    D. S. Hube
    Kathleen McKinley
    Dave Pierre
    Amy Ridenour
    Julia A. Seymour
    Terry Trippany
    Rusty Weiss
    Brad Wilmouth

    Publisher
    Brent Bozell

    Site Design
    Dialog New Media

     

    • Home
    • Blogs
    • About
    • Forum
    • Contact
    • Donate
    • Search
    • Account
    • rss
    • CNSNews
    • MRC TV
    • Biz & Media
    • Culture & Media
    • Take Action!
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • Amazon Kindle
    • Advertise
    • Jobs

    Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
    Privacy Policy | Terms of Use