What was the hold up on settling the budget? Surprise...
The main abortion-related provisions sought by Republicans were stripped out, apparently in return for deeper cuts in federal spending. But the intense push by abortion opponents, including Representatives Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Mike Pence of Indiana, sent a signal that Republicans intend to keep social issues on the front burner as Congress moves on to a further series of battles.
The abortion opponents lost on their effort to restrict money going to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers as part of the budget deal. But they succeeded in winning agreement for a separate vote on that issue next week — Senate Democrats are sure to defeat it — and in keeping in the budget deal a provision that would restrict abortion financing in Washington.
The social conservatives established that they have a welcome ear in Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, who has won awards from opponents of abortion rights and during the debate over health care of provisions was a visible supporter of preventing federal money from going to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. (Federal law already prohibits the use of federal dollars for abortions..)
So the whole country almost turned into "Lord of the Flies" in order to prevent money from being spent on abortions that can't be spent on abortions as it already stands under federal law? Good to know nobody's time was wasted.
On a personal note, this article marks the point where I finally come up against the hard, unyielding, concrete reality of the New York Times pay wall. We'll have to see how it affects the blog. In the end, it's likely I'll fold and pay for a subscription. Though I think their business model is a bit daffy and outdated, when all's said and done, I want what they have to sell and the price isn't unreasonable.
The bastards.
No comments:
Post a Comment