Republicans Walk Back "Redefining Rape" in Bill Defunding Abortions

Looks like the Republicans in the House have walked back their controversial verbiage in the HR3 bill that would defund Planned Parenthood any any other organization that performs abortions. Many have argued that they were "redefining rape" by only including "forcible" rape in the list of exemptions:

"The word 'forcible' will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the sponsors of H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," told Politico.

The Hyde Amendment is the existing measure meant to bar the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.

This is no big surprise. It should have never been put in the bill in the first place. They should've that this would only inflame the public with virtually no upside to including it.

Obama: No , Seriously I Want to Ban Earmarks & Freeze Spending Now, Really! Déjà Vu

According to Jake Tapper of ABC, Obama will call for a federal spending freeze and an earmark ban in tonight’s State of the Union speech:

Pursuing a path of deficit reduction and government reform, President Obama will tonight in his State of the Union address call for a ban on earmarks and he will propose a five year budget freeze on non-security related discretionary spending, ABC News has learned.

The proposals come as the president prepares to tackle the deficit and debt and as he faces a House of Representatives in Republican hands, many of whose members include those affiliated with the Tea Party who may be willing to embrace both moves.

This is really laughable. He’s called for an earmark ban, since 2007, when he was running for the presidency, and that never stopped him from signing any bills that had thousands of earmarks in it, like Stimulus and his health care legislation.

Second, it seems that he’ll be speaking out of both sides of his mouth tonight. He’s supposed to call for a freeze on spending but then go on to say that we need to spend more. Huh?

The president will propose some new spending in certain areas that address the speech’s theme of “How We Win the Future”: innovation, education and infrastructure. But those increases will be proposed within the context of a proposed partial budget freeze.

I’ve wrote on his call for more spending earlier.

This really is really rather pointless. Republicans have already banned earmarks in the House and the Senate Republicans were able to kill the omnibus bill that was full of earmarks, when the Democrats tried to ram it down their throats during the lame duck.
Also, as Ed Morrissey explains, this budget “cut” isn’t really a cut:

It’s a cut in Beltwayese, in other words, because normally we’d expand spending instead of reducing it. At least that isn’t as bad as Washington usually gets about cuts, which politicians usually define as a decrease in the rate of spending increases. And don’t expect that definition to become defunct in the next two years, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

Let’s not even get me started on Obama’s record on reigning in spending.

State Senator (D) From Pence's IN District Dishonestly Goes After Pence's Bill That'll Cut Federal Money to Planned Parenthood

Democratic State Senator and former Planned Parenthood public policy director Sue Errington recently went after US Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and his plan to stop giving any federal money to Planned Parenthood, in an op-ed. FYI, Errington's state district 26 resides in Pence's federal 6th district:.

Why would Congressman Mike Pence suggest it is good public health policy to take birth control away from low-income women in this country? Yet that would be the result of the bill he promoted in last Sunday's Star Press. He wants to ban Planned Parenthood -- the country's leading provider of birth control services -- from the Title X program.

Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. It is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families. From the program's beginning in 1970, Planned Parenthood, with clinics throughout the country, has been an important part of the program. It's estimated that one out of four American women has visited a Planned Parenthood center for health care at least once in her life. Why would Congressman Pence want to remove this pillar from our country's family planning infrastructure?

He says it's because he wants to ensure that no federal funds are used to subsidize abortion. That assurance is already in the law through the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the use of federal dollars for abortion. Not a dime of Title X funding supports abortion. It is used, rather, to assist low-income persons with the cost of basic reproductive health care -- Pap tests, pregnancy tests, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and birth control.

Her whole premise for this story is wrong. Actually, it's so wrong that there's no way that this is just made a honest mistake. One can only come to the conclusion that, not surprisingly, she is lying in order to promote her own liberal agenda.

Pence is not calling for Planned Parenthood to be "banned" or closed. He's proposing that federal taxpayer money should no longer be given to Planned Parenthood.

Given the dire straights that the government is in, this isn't an outrageous proposal. Cuts need to be made, and this should be an easy cut to make.

Most Americans don't want their money to go to funding abortions and Planned Parenthood, and the women's clinic receives enough money from other sources that they really don't need our tax money to stay afloat. They'll be just fine without it.

Also, she says that the Hyde Amendment already stops Planned Parenthood from directly using federal money for abortions. While this is true, Pence argues that any money given to them does indirectly pay for it. He says that they will use the money that they get from the government for other programs, but in doing so, that will free up money that they have received from other sources that would've paid for those other programs, otherwise, and use it to pay for abortions.

Since Pence is probably running for governor or an outside chance of running for president in 2012, she is might be trying to position herself for a campaign to replace him as Indiana's 6th District representative in the US House. Still, why would she be so blatantly dishonest? That won't make the conservative 6th think highly of her.

Also, it could be that she's trying to protect her former employer. Either way, she needs to stop being so dishonest.

Senator Errington couldn't be reached for comment.

Surprise! New CBO Report: Repealing ObamaCare Will Reduce Spending By $540B, Taxes By $770B

Color me surprised. Just about every Democrat, lefty blog and media outlet was touting the report from the CBO, which said that repealing ObamaCare would raise the deficit $230 Billion. Of course, they failed to mention how they came up with that number.
To further clarify their findings, the CBO followed up the previous report with one that goes into more detail on how they reached that number. Wouldn’t you know? It said that repealing ObamaCare would result in a massive reduction in spending and taxes. In fact, the $230 Billion amount that they came up with were based off of the tax hikes and Medicare cuts that came with the bill, not because it actually will make healthcare cheaper:

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

Again, we were proven right. This is a disasterous bill that creates a massive new program that requires huge tax hikes to even come close to funding. I tried to find a liberal, who had a comment on the new CBO report, but shockingly, it has been very quiet on the left, today.

NPR Exec Who Fired Juan Williams Resigns After Being Turned Into Scapegoat

After the controversy behind the firing of Juan Williams, federal funding of National Public Radio has been severely threatened. In order to save face, NPR has made the executive that fired Mr. Williams into a scapegoat and has accepted her resignation:

Ellen Weiss, the senior vice president of news at National Public Radio whose quick firing of senior news analyst Juan Williams last October ignited a political and public relations firestorm, resigned Thursday.

Her resignation comes at the conclusion of an internal investigation into the firing conducted by the NPR board and the outside law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

Ms. Weiss’s quick dismissal of Mr. Williams, by phone, after he made controversial comments about Muslims on Fox News Channel, was found by the investigation to be legal under terms of his contract. But the way it was handled “became a flash point” in the debate that ensued, said NPR media reporter David Folkenflik. In the resulting political uproar, some Republicans called for an end to federal financing of NPR.

Even though the probe showed that she was well within her rights to fire him, they still decided to withhold her bonus for 2010 because of how the whole situation was mishandled and because of the firestorm that was created as a result.

She needed to step down because her actions is being used as a talking point by those who are wanting to cut NPR's federal funding.

However, NPR is still very susceptible to getting their federal funding cut, despite Ms. Weiss stepping down. The political winds in DC is blowing towards cutting frivolous discretionary spending because of the huge deficits and debt, and NPR is just too perfect of a target for the Republicans in Congress to ignore. Also, since NPR can survive on its own without the funding, so, Democrats will be hard-pressed to come up with an argument good enough to save it, especially if they don't want to considered too liberal or a free-spender, and in this era of TEA Party, that is the last thing that red-state Democrats will want to be labeled as. They won't survive 2012, if they are considered a "free-spending, big government liberal" by the voters.

Correction: I do apologize. I missed that it was Vivia Schiller, NPR president, not Ms. Weiss that had her bonus held back.

Sen. Tom Coburn: We Will See Debt-Triggered Apocalypse, If Federal Spending Isn't Cut

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) opined that this country will see unemployment skyrocket and economic output fall simultaneously leading ultimately to the middle class being destroyed, if federal spending isn't cut significantly and soon:

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn warned Americans this Sunday of an apocalyptic economic future, with Great Depression levels of unemployment and a destruction of the country's middle class.

The Oklahoma Republican told Fox News that unless Washington cuts spending and reduces the national debt, unemployment in the United States could rise dramatically from less than 10 percent today to 18 percent or more.

At the same time, Coburn says the nation's economic output could drop calamitously — by 9 percent. Once that happens, he predicts the middle class could be destroyed.

“I think you’ll see the middle class just destroyed if we don’t do this,” Coburn told Fox News, adding that he hopes President Barack Obama and Congress can work together next year to cut $100 billion to $200 billion as a “down payment” on debt reduction.

He goes on to add that they only other way to pay down our debt would be to print money out of thin air. However, this would cause the prices on everything to be much higher without salaries going any higher. Who will this hurt the most? No, not Warren Buffet. The poor will be the ones who will hurt the most from having to pay $10 or more for a gallon of milk.

He, also, puts forth the idea that we're going to have to experience some pain any way that we go to fix this problem, but it'd be better to pick our own way to deal with the pain rather than it be dictated and forced upon us by other means. For example, if every country refused to let us borrow money from them, then, we'd be forced to make massive cuts to everything all at once, which would be devastating to our economy. We need a plan to move forward out of this debt that won't be a total shock to the economic system.

Now, some may chastise him for using such colorful language and implementing the "politics of fear" by warning of an apocalypse cause by uncontrollable debt. However, this is a very serious issue that needs immediate attention.

People have seen what has happened in Greece and what is happening in Ireland and Britain, where they've hit full panic mode over the debt, and people are taking to the streets because of all of the spending cuts to their entitlement programs. Most Americans don't want what is happening in Europe to happen here and have beginning to call for the government to get control of their pocketbooks, just as everyone else does.

One of the main tenants of the TEA Party is to cut down the deficit and to cut spending, and the rise of the TEA Party is an example of how everyday citizens are taking control of the agenda on this issue in Washington and want change to a more responsible form of government.

Mike Pence: It's Time to Stop Funding Abortion Providers With Federal Money

In a statement recently made to LifeNews, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said that the federal government needs to stop funding organizations, like Planned Parenthood, that provide abortions:

“It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion.  It is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use those funds to promote abortion.

“Planned Parenthood’s own report shows that the largest abortion provider in America is being bankrolled by American taxpayers.  With a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate, there is simply no reason during these tough economic times why taxpayers’ hard-earned money should fund the activities of abortion providers and equip them with the resources they need to end innocent human life.

“The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood by passing the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which I intend to introduce again in the next Congress.”

Pence goes on to argue that, while these organizations aren't using the federal money to directly fund abortions, they are funding them indirectly:

When Title X money goes to clinics that provide both abortions and family planning services, even though the money cannot directly fund abortions, it is being used to offset operational costs with federal funds, freeing up money to promote and provide abortions.

With the mood in the country leaning towards cutting costs wherever we can pro-life sentiments growing, this has a shot at happening.

However, the liberal Democrats are going to fight this tooth and nail, and I don't see Obama signing off on this, either, unless he totally wants to alienate his base.

Abortion is one of the "holy grail" issues for his liberal base, and I don't see them forgiving him for this and his other "disappointments", like not shutting down Gitmo, not letting Bush tax cuts expire for the rich, and not drawing down troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.