From the diaries by Erick We don’t have all the specifics. But it is pretty apparent that Obama’s “deal” on contraceptives is a trick. As to Catholic institutions, Catholic hospitals and universities would pay insurance companies premiums, which would pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. Evil doesn’t become good because it’s laundered through a third party. But, says HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, premiums would go down because, inter alia, you would not have to provide health services to those pesky babies who would have been born, had you not aborted them. But if this was a theological defense, it would have applied, whether or not contraceptives and abortifacients were specified in the insurance policy. Incidentally, the 98-99% contraception usage figure which is being thrown about unchallenged? It is from the virulently pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute. Finally, what about individual Catholic or fundamentalist or other employers who have religious objections to abortions and contraceptives? The “deal” would throw them under the bus. Unlike some in the Catholic hierarchy, I vigorously fought against ObamaCare and predicted the abortion-related problems they are now facing. Am I now to go to prison for exercising my conscience? And does the First Amendment apply any less to my religious beliefs. by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89 and a Dunbarton, New Hampshire resident.
See the article here:
How Dumb Do You Think I Am?
The STOCK Act – which is short for the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act; honestly, I wish that they’d stop coming up with cute names for these. This particular one is not really obnoxious, but some of them have really reached for the acronym – started to get really pushed through last year, once it came out that Members of Congress, including then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, were profiting unduly from legal insider trading* . I call it ‘legal’ not in the sense that there was nothing wrong with said insider trading; I call it ‘legal’ because Congress exempted itself from the rules that the rest of us have to follow. The distinction is important. It’s perfectly legal for, say, Senator Dianne Feinstein to buy into a biostock company just before the company picks up a fat government subsidy check, even if she knew about it ahead of time. That’s the problem . Anyway, one of the more egregious things being done – again, involving then-Speaker Pelosi in at least one case – was the practice of offering Members of Congress a favorable position from which to buy into an IPO. Pelosi in particular used this practice to buy into a Visa IPO , right before credit card legislation that hampered Visa g ot somehow sidetracked in Congress for a year ; she ended up making a killing on the (again, ‘LEGAL’) deal. And, naturally, the amendment that would ban this practice in the future has been named the ‘Pelosi Provision’ by Republicans. By all accounts, the former Speaker is unhappy about this; I am uncertain whether or not that she is as unhappy about this as I am that the woman made several million unfortunately-legal dollars off of her former position to manipulate and delay legislation, but I somehow doubt it. The bill is largely expected to pass, by the way: the real fireworks will be in conference. If the thing gets defanged, it will be there – so keep an eye out for that particular problem. It wouldn’t be the first time that a troublesomely reformist piece of legislation got revised out of existence, while out of camera range… Moe Lane ( crosspost ) PS: Politico reports that the STOCK Act’s original sponsors Louise Slaughter and Tim Walz are unhappy that the Republican majority has taken away their bill and are now busily reshaping it. Alas for Rep. Slaughter, it’s not exactly Eric Cantor’s fault that she was incapable of getting it passed in the first place…
Go here to see the original:
Proposed ‘Pelosi Provision’ of the STOCK Act unveiled yesterday.
She also trots out the hilariously absurd Obama “saved or created” 3 million jobs line. Via Daily Caller: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has attributed the nation’s sluggish economy to the “failed” policies of President George W. Bush. The Daily Caller asked Pelosi whether or not she, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should take “ownership” of the current state
Read the original post:
Pelosi Challenged: Should You, Reid And Obama Take Ownership of The Economy? Shockingly, She Says It’s Still Bush’s Fault…
She also trots out the hilariously absurd Obama “saved or created” 3 million jobs line. Via Daily Caller: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has attributed the nation’s sluggish economy to the “failed” policies of President George W. Bush. The Daily Caller asked Pelosi whether or not she, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should take “ownership” of the current state
Read the rest here:
Pelosi Challenged: Should You, Reid And Obama Take Ownership of The Economy? Shockingly, She Says It’s Still Bush’s Fault…
Jon Huntsman betrayed South Carolina’s largest newspaper,
