[Guest post by DRJ]

The AP reports House Democrats may pass health care reform next week following agreements today that call for more federal spending on student loans:

“Under White House pressure to act swiftly, House and Senate Democratic leaders reached for agreement Friday on President Barack Obama’s health care bill, sweetened suddenly by fresh billions for student aid and a sense that breakthroughs are at hand.

“It won’t be long,” before lawmakers vote, predicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She said neither liberals’ disappointment over the lack of a government health care option nor a traditional mistrust of the Senate would prevent passage in the House.
***
The decision to add far-reaching student aid changes to the bill had its roots in obscure parliamentary rules governing the Senate’s debate of the legislation. But House Democrats and the White House quickly seized on it as a way to advance a top administration priority that lacks the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate otherwise.

The measure would require the government to originate student loans, closing out a role for banks and other private lenders who charge a fee. Obama proposed taking the savings and plowing it into higher Pell Grants that go to needy college students.

Officials said that under current estimates, the change would free as much as $66 billion over a decade, although Pelosi indicated she wanted it spread beyond Pell Grants to other education programs.”

Increased student loan spending added to a health care bill gave Republicans another reason to oppose Democratic-backed legislation:

“Well of course it’s a very bad idea,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We now have the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, and they do want to take over the student loan business.”

He said it was symptomatic of Democrats’ determination to have the government expand its tentacles into absolutely everything.”

Only liberals could believe more federal spending will get people to agree to more federal spending, but the really big news is Rep. Bart Stupak’s belief that Democrats want federal funding for abortion because they know the government can’t afford to pay for more health care:

“Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Margaret Sanger (and others) would be pleased.

H/T Drudge Report.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Jurors in Wichita, Kansas, took only 37 minutes to convict Scott Roeder for the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

“The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder for putting a gun to the forehead of Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and pulling the trigger.

Defense attorney Mark Rudy described his case as helpless and hopeless.

“I’ve never seen anyone lay himself out as much as Mr. Roeder did,” Rudy said after the verdict, referring to his client’s confessions.”

Roeder claimed he acted to protect the lives of unborn children who were in “immediate danger” because of Tiller. His attorneys hoped for a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, “a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.” The Judge ruled the manslaughter charge could not be submitted to the jury because Roeder failed to show Tiller constituted an imminent threat.

Roeder could receive a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. The prosecutor may also seek a so-called “Hard 50″ sentence that would require Roeder “serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.”

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Super Bowl XLIV pits Drew Brees and the New Orleans Saints against Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. It’s scheduled for February 7, 2010, so the famous Super Bowl ads haven’t even aired yet, but there will be added interest this year — especially from abortion advocates and their pro-life opponents — because of the Tebow ad:

“The 30-second spot, paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow’s turbulent pregnancy in 1987:

When Tebow suffered from a dangerous infection during a mission trip to the Philippines, doctors recommended that she terminate her pregnancy, fearing she might die in childbirth. But she carried Tim to term, and he went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy and guide the Florida Gators to two BCS championships.

It’s a happy story with an inspirational ending, but pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue and threatens to “throw women under the bus.”

The Women’s Media Center, the National Organization for Women, and other abortion groups have initiated an online petition and letter-writing campaign asking CBS to pull the ad as too controversial:

“Greene, of the Women’s Media Center, says CBS should simply follow its own example and ban advocacy ads from its airwaves.

“CBS has a very long history of prohibiting advocacy ads that it deems controversial,” she said, listing banned commercials from PETA, MoveOn.org and the United Church of Christ. “We are calling them out for the hypocrisy and bias in making the decision to air an ad that clearly is on a controversial issue.”

Reportedly CBS is “not backing down,” releasing a statement that says, “At CBS, our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a process that ensures all ads — on all sides of an issue — are appropriate for air.”

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Hot Air links this Live Action undercover video of Planned Parenthood’s advice to mothers considering abortion:

Here is Live Action.org’s description of the video taken at an Appleton WI Planned Parenthood clinic:

“In the undercover video, when the two women ask a Planned Parenthood counselor if the pregnant woman’s 10-week-old unborn child has a heartbeat, the counselor emphasizes “heart tones,” and answers, “Heart beat is when the fetus is active in the uterus–can survive–which is about seventeen or eighteen weeks.” On the contrary, embryologists agree that the heartbeat begins around 3 weeks. Wisconsin informed consent law requires that women receive medically accurate information before undergoing an abortion.

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

In 2006, Patterico posted a photo array of babies in utero and addressed the question of “When does a fetus resemble a baby?” I think it helps to see the photos as you consider Planned Parenthood’s advice.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The abortion issue may heat up as ads air like this one from the Center for Reproductive Rights:

The ad likely opposes the Stupak Amendment discussed in this earlier post.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

One reason the Pelosi health care bill passed the House was the Stupak Amendment that reaffirmed the Hyde Amendment’s ban on the use of federal funds “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood condemned the Stupak Amendment, claiming it undermined “the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money.” [NOTE from DRJ: I believe this is because, under the House bill as amended by the Stupak Amendment, a private policy can't cover abortions if federal funds pay some of the premiums.] Planned Parenthood argues the Stupak Amendment violates “President Obama’s promise to the American people that no one would be forced to lose her or his present coverage under health reform.”

After the health care bill passed, Cecille Richards, the President of the Planned Parenthood Action Center, called on Planned Parenthood supporters to stop the Stupak Amendment by contacting President Obama at the White House — their “strongest weapon” in the fight to protect women’s health. Today on CNN’s State of the Union, David Axelrod confirmed the White House will work to stop the Stupak amendment and keep it out of the final health care bill:

“The abortion amendment was tacked on to the House health care bill and was a key factor in securing the votes of moderate Democrats before the bill was approved by a narrow margin last weekend. The amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restrict federal subsidies from going toward private plans that offer abortion coverage.

Axelrod said in an interview Sunday that the amendment changes the “status quo,” something the president cannot abide.

“The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn’t believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion,” Axelrod said. “This shouldn’t be a debate about abortion. And he’s going to work with Senate and the House to try and ensure that at the end of the day, the status quo is not changed … I believe that there are discussions ongoing to how to adjust it accordingly.”

When the abortion issue calls, the White House listens.

By the way, are you really keeping your “present health care policy” if you previously paid for it yourself but the federal government helps you pay for it in the future? Or have I missed out on a great opportunity because the federal government has already been helping people pay for their private insurance policies?

– DRJ