House Bill Repealing Obamacare Good for Something

Remember that show-legislation that was passed in the House last week repealing Obamacare. It, of course, was completely useless. Completely. It was pure red meat thrown to us with no hope of actually passing the Senate or the President.

But the Republicans say it's important to get the Dems on record but is there anyone out there who doesn't understand that the Democrats are for Big Government Healthcare and abortion? And if there are people who don't know it, are they really going to vote? I'm thinking no.

But the bill does contain some wording I thought of interest. Here's why - remember former Congressman Steve Driehaus’ federal defamation lawsuit charging the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List with “depriving a person of his livelihood” because he lost an election after the SBA List educated his constituents about his vote in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion in the Obamacare. Driehaus cried that the pro-life group lied about abortion funding in Obamacare. (Insert "Waaaaaaa" and thumb sucking noise here.)

But here's the hilarious part. This House bill that just passed specifically says that Obamacare "expands the role of the Federal Government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion."

And five Democrat congress people also voted for the bill. So while Driehaus tries to argue that the SBA-List lied, I guess he should tell that to the House of Representatives as well.

And while we're at it, he should probably just sue the people of his district for voting against him.

Comments

  1. former Congressman Steve Driehaus’ federal defamation lawsuit charging the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List with “depriving a person of his livelihood” because he lost an election ...

    I find the entire idea of someone using public service such as representing a district in Congress as a livelihood simply appalling and disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Amy: they, uh, do make their living from their congressional salary, you realize that, right? Do you know what "livelihood" means?

    The problem is that "losing an election" is not being deprived of a livelihood, at least not in a legally actionable way. "You cease to provide satisfactory service, your services are no longer retained" is not "deprivation of livelihood" that you can go to court over.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment