The Absence of Obamacare Credits in Federal Exchanges WAS INTENTIONAL – Designed to Force Compliance

By Tom White  –  VA Right  -  Cross-Posted at Ask Marion:Two recent court cases came to two different conclusions in the battle against Obamacare. The question was concerning the language of the bill when it comes to credits in Health Care Exchanges set up by the Federal Government when states decide not to set up State Health Care Exchanges.

The language is pretty clear in the fact that it does create credits for Exchanges set up by the states. These credits are substantial and are the only part of the entire Affordable Care Act that actually addresses affordability. Sadly, this is done by redistributing the wealth. By taxing the productive earners in order to subsidize non-productive earners.

Monthly premiums for silver plans – the standard insurance policy sold on the exchanges – cost an average of $345 a month this year for people who did not qualify for subsidies, a new analysis from the administration shows.  – See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/18/Average-Obamacare-Subsidy-3312-Paid-Date-47-Billion#sthash.OQTugto5.dpuf

According to The Fiscal Times:

Monthly premiums for silver plans – the standard insurance policy sold on the exchanges – cost an average of $345 a month this year for people who did not qualify for subsidies, a new analysis from the administration shows.

However, for the overwhelming majority of Obamacare enrollees (87 percent) who did qualify for financial assistance, the average monthly premium on the silver plan costs about $69. That’s an average tax credit of about $276 a month, or $3,312 a year. The administration’s report broke down the average monthly premium for each of the four plans offered on the federal marketplace – before and after tax credits. It also detailed the percentage of enrollees selecting each plan, with or without tax credits. Data was not available for the state exchanges, which make up about one third of the total 8 million enrollees.

On average, monthly premiums after subsidies run about $69.00. But without the subsidy, $345.00. And 87% of enrollees qualify for these huge subsidies.

So with all the mandates for coverage, mandates on what must be covered and what can be charged, it is the subsidies and the subsidies alone that make the product affordable. Without them, the cost of Health Insurance rises considerably due to mandatory expanded coverages.

The Affordable Care Act depends on states setting up Exchanges as called for in the law. However, when much of the law was in the process of being written, it was done in secret. No one knew exactly what was going into the mix and the authors were as yet unaware of the massive resistance the bill was about to encounter. But they anticipated at least some token resistance from the rascally Republican controlled states. And this expected resistance was addressed in the bill with various sneaky political weapons and landmines designed to nudge resistive states into setting up the exchanges.

One political weapon the Democrats love to use is abortion. Republicans are outraged when tax dollars are confiscated to pay for a procedure they consider infanticide. So one of the booby traps the architects of Obamacare used was abortion. This would be the first of several “lesser of two evils” options resistive Republican states would face in deciding to implement Obamacare. You may recall the Stupak Amendment that extended the Hyde Amendment wording that prevents the Federal Government from paying for abortions. There was a big argument in House over abortion and several pro life Democrats insisted that the ACA not pay for abortions as a condition of casting their vote for the bill. However, that was the House Bill which was scrapped after Scott Brown’s victory effectively cut off the Democrat’s super majority in the Senate.

The Conservative Intelligence Briefing put it this way:

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

- See more at: http://www.conservativeintel.com/the-briefing-vol-ii-issue-25/?utm_source=Intel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House#sthash.tC38djHj.dpuf

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

- See more at: http://www.conservativeintel.com/the-briefing-vol-ii-issue-25/?utm_source=Intel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House#sthash.tC38djHj.dpuf

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

So the truth is, there is no language in the Senate Bill itself that prevents the Federal Government from paying for abortions. And in order to get the pro life Democrats to vote for the Senate version of Obamacare, Obama issues an executive order #13535 that pretends to forbid Federal payment of abortion. None of the pro life groups were fooled, nor were the voters in Stupak’s District in Michigan. Stupak “retired” and the voters put a Republican in the seat.

But according to Wiki, there are incentives to entice states into setting up these Exchanges:

Under the law, setting up an exchange gives a state partial discretion on standards and prices of insurance, aside from those specifics set-out in the ACA. For example, those administering the exchange will be able to determine which plans are sold on or excluded from the exchanges, and adjust (through limits on and negotiations with private insurers) the prices on offer. They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary; in either case, federal subsidies are prohibited from being used to fund the procedure. If a state does not set up an exchange itself, they lose that discretion, and the responsibility to set up exchanges for such states defaults to the federal government, whereby the Department of Health and Human Services assumes the authority and legal obligation to operate all functions in these federally facilitated exchanges.

And if having more control and discretion on the policies offered in each state isn’t enough to convince states to implement Obamacare, the Democrats added a big hammer. The Federal Government will come in and run things, leaving the states no say in how health care policies are sold in the state. Take that, you Republicans.

This Youtube video is a recording of the chief architect of the Senate Obamacare bill. The guy who put the political plums and hemlock in the bill, Jonathan Gruber. It is clear from listening to him speak that the intent was to use the lack of subsidies in the Federally run Exchanges as a mechanism to force states into compliance.

Video: Jonathan Gruber Once Again Says Subsidies Are Tied to State-Based Exchanges

But Gruber said that this was a mistake. A speak-o (as opposed to a typo). The intent was always to have the Federally run Exchanges give out the subsidies!

There is a video here that is nearly an hour long that has been making the rounds on the internet. I edited the same video down to about 5 minutes with the important parts being about the first 2 minutes. The rest of this is some pretty revealing comments Gruber made on the longer version.

Video:  Jon Gruber Condense Version

So it is abundantly clear that the intent was to use the lack of subsidies in the Federally run exchanges to pressure states into compliance.

So in the two recent court decisions in direct opposition to one another as FoxNews explains:

WASHINGTON –  Two federal appeals court rulings put the issue of ObamaCare subsidies in limbo Tuesday, with one court invalidating some of them and the other upholding all of them.

The first decision came Tuesday morning from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The panel, in a major blow to the law, ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov.

A separate federal appeals court — the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.

The conflicting rulings would typically fast-track the matter to the Supreme Court. However, it is likely that the administration will ask the D.C. appeals court to first convene all 11 judges to re-hear that case.

In both instances the government argued that it is obvious that the intent was to include federal subsidies in the Federally run Exchanges if the states refused to do so. But listening to the guy that wrote the bill, the exact opposite is the case. The subsidies were left out on Federally run Exchanges to use as a weapon to either force Republican governors to implement a state exchange or face the voters to explain why they are paying more for health insurance and get no subsidies. The hope of this Democratic bill was to force Republicans to do something they did not want to do.

Now one of the arguments I have not heard made is that on the issue of abortion on Federally run Exchanges. One of the incentives for the Liberal states to jump in and implement exchanges is the ability to mandate expanded coverages such as 100% payment for abortions. And if we follow the same logic the government argued in the two conflicting ruling cases, that the Federal Government steps in and is essentially considered the state for all intents and purposes – something I find preposterous – then what is to stop the Federal government who suddenly finds itself a surrogate for the state from mandating abortion coverage (from Wiki linked above):

Under the law, setting up an exchange gives a state partial discretion on standards and prices of insurance, aside from those specifics set-out in the ACA. For example, those administering the exchange will be able to determine which plans are sold on or excluded from the exchanges, and adjust (through limits on and negotiations with private insurers) the prices on offer. They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary;

So if the federal government can come in and replace the state in every way, then the same argued consideration as far as subsidies would extend to the other areas of “partial discretion” of the states. And the law could then go around the Obama executive order prohibiting federal funds from paying for abortion.

This must go to the Supreme Court and the 36 states without state run subsidies must stop receiving federal subsidies.

And as Gruber says in the long version of the video, repeal is unlikely to get rid of Obamacare. But neglect in the form of non compliance will cause it to implode in on itself. He uses a 3 legged as an example. The legs are eliminate pre existing conditions, insurance mandates and subsidies. Take away one of the legs and the law collapses. No one is fighting the pre existing condition elimination and the horrific Supreme Court ruling that held the mandates were a tax (and thus constitutional) is gone as a possible tool to kill the law. The last remaining leg is the subsidies. Without them, the law cannot survive. And since 36 states refused to set up exchanges, this is a huge threat to Obamacare’s survival.

With more and more information being unearthed every day about this bill, this is an important battle in the war on healthcare being prosecuted by the Obama Administration.

Update:

My theory is that if the Court rules that Federal Exchanges are essentially State Exchanges for the purpose of the subsidies, then the Feds are, essentially, the state. States are free to mandate abortion coverage, the Feds are not by Executive order. So if the Federal Government becomes a state for subsidies, then the Feds can mandate abortion coverage and also get around the Exec. Order.  Tom White

What About Abortion’s Negative Impact on Men? – The Forgotten Fathers

Washington, DC (By Lauren Enriquez - LiveActionNews- Opinon): With the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 came the legalization of the ultimate usurper of fatherhood: abortion. Forty years later, America faces the unpleasant reality that, thanks to abortion and the sexual revolution, the role of fatherhood has rapidly made an about-face. Fatherhood has gone from being an unquestioned ingredient in family life to a variable that occurs in the family dynamic only when circumstances are aligned just right.

It is this dilemma that prompted Online for Life President Brian Fisher, in anticipation of Father’s Day, to release a FoxNews column about the impact of abortion on men. Fisher begins by acknowledging that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 was a welcome liberation from perceived shackles of fatherhood. However, as the years have dragged on, more tragic and dark realities have emerged as true consequences of abortion’s mitigation of fatherly rights and responsibilities. Says Fisher:

Of course, millions of men welcomed the change. The sexual revolution was booming, and men were experiencing a new kind of empowerment we hadn’t previously enjoyed…

Abortion didn’t empower women.  It empowered men.

Fast forward to Father’s Day 2013.

Fifty-five million aborted babies later, it seems many men are realizing the Supreme Court got it wrong.  Fatherhood doesn’t start with birth. It starts when we opt to sleep with a woman.  And, despite federal law, our consciences testify that we are wired to protect and care for a child when it is conceived, not nine months later.

What are the unfortunate side-effects of elective abortion for men? According to Fisher, abortion is beginning to show its ugly face in the form of many tragic consequences, including depression and the exploitation of women:

We are just now considering, though, that we victimize ourselves.

Depression, guilt, shame, a loss of self, a loss of honor, and destroyed relationships are common male consequences of abortion.

In our heart of hearts, we are coming to grips with what we’re doing. We are willfully taking the lives of those we are wired to protect.

Men, born to be honorable and full of valor, Fisher says, have traded their innate sense of responsibility for a perceived freedom that is not worth the cost. He says that a man’s fundamental calling to defend those who are dependent on him, including the unborn, is squashed by the abortion mentality.

He concludes by suggesting that, although Father’s Day is a time to remember and honor the good men in our lives, it has also morphed into a day when the nation should mourn. As we need a Veterans’ Day to thank those who have fought for our freedom, we also need Memorial Day to remember those who have fallen victim to the ravages of war. Similarly, every Father’s Day since 1973 has become a day when we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that fathers are undermined by a culture that affirms “a woman’s right to choose,” since that tragic choice eliminates what is good about men and fathers.

Organizations like Rachel’s Vineyard work to heal the wound that abortion has left on women and men alike.

LifeNews Note: Lauren is a former Legislative Associate for Texas Right to Life and a graduate of Ave Maria University. This post originally appeared at Live Action News.

Technorati Tags: Fathers,Abortion,Fatherhood,Choices,Father's DAy,Veteran's Day,Parenting

Looking Back: Sarah Palin as McCain’s VP – 2008 OpEd

Tripp Palin Johnston and His Uncle Trig Palin

Washington Times: Amid the speculation regarding John McCain’s choice to complete his presidential ticket, I offer my unsolicited suggestion for his vice president: the first woman — and youngest — governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, who is an unstereotypical and effective Republican.

During her first year in office, as reported by the Associated Press on May 10, she “distanced herself from the old guard, powerful members of the state GOP (and) stood up to the oil interests that hold great power in Alaska, and with bipartisan support in the statehouse, she won a tax increase on the oil companies’ profits.” Last December, this mother of four children, Mrs. Palin, four months’ pregnant, found she was going to have a child with Down syndrome — a condition characterized by moderate-to-severe mental retardation. A school friend of one of my sons had Down syndrome; I have also known functioning adults with the extra chromosomes of that syndrome.

However, as a longtime reporter on disability rights, I have discovered that many fetuses so diagnosed have been aborted by parents who have been advised by their doctors to end the pregnancies because of the future “imperfect quality of life” of such children.

Mrs. Palin’s first reaction to the diagnosis was to research the facts about the condition, since, as she said, “I’ve never had problems with my other pregnancies.” As a result, she and her husband, Todd, never had any doubt they would have the child.

“We’ve both been very vocal about being pro-life,” she told the Associated Press. “We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential.” In an age when DNA and other genetic-selection tests increasingly determine who is “fit” to join us human beings, we are witnessing the debate between sanctity of life vs. quality of life being more often decided in favor of death. This is a result welcomed by internationally-influential bioethicist Peter Singer. He is now a celebrated Princeton University professor, who, in July 1983, wrote in Pediatrics, the official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics: “If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant.” And there are bioethicists who point to the continuing costs of rearing a “defective infant.”

By inspirational contrast, Mrs. Palin, says of her new son, Trig: “I’m looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?” Three days after she gave birth, Mrs. Palin was back in her Anchorage office with her husband and Trig. “I can think of so many male candidates,” she tells the AP, “who watched families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can’t do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected.” Says the governor of Alaska: “I will not shirk my duties.” Taking her stand for life as a holder of high political office is all the more valuable in the face of the termination of fetal lives as not worth continuing before they can speak for themselves. Mrs. Palin’s stand also puts a searching light on the growing “futility” doctrine in hospitals which is affecting people of all ages.

Nancy Valko, a medical ethicist and intensive-care nurse I consult on these lives-worth-living debates, has emphasized that “with the rise of the modern bioethics movement, life is no longer assumed to have the intrinsic value it once did, and ‘quality of life’ has become the overriding consideration.” Because of Mrs. Palin’s reputation as a maverick, and her initial reduction of state spending (including pork-barrel spending), life-affirming Palin connects with voters. For these reasons, she has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for Mr. McCain.

She would be a decided asset: an independent Republican governor, a woman, a defender of life against the creeping culture of death and a fresh face in national politics. She was described in “the Almanac of National Politics” as “an avid hunter and fisher with a killer smile who wears designer glasses and heels, and hair like modern sculpture.” Moreover, I doubt that she would engage in such campaigning, as Sen. McCain’s strongly implying that a Hamas terrorist saying he would like Barack Obama to be president thereby damages Mr. McCain’s opponent (though Mr. Obama has totally condemned Hamas). Still unknown is whether Mrs. Palin would be as flip-flopping as Mr. McCain on the Bush torture policy that has so blighted our reputation in the world. But we would find out: If chosen as his running mate, she would create more interest in this already largely scripted presidential campaign.

And her presence could highlight Mr. Obama’s extremist abortion views on whether certain lives are worth living — even a child born after a botched abortion.  

Governor Palin: An Extra Chromosome of Love

Trig Palin Age 3 

Gov. Palin: Trig is getting a buddy!

Technorati Tags: Life,Life Is a Gift,Children,Babies,Abortion,Parenting,Choices,Palin,Sarah Palin,Trig Palin,The Palins,Pro-Life,Down Syndrome,Love,Extra Chromosome

UK… Oregon… hospitals burn aborted babies for ‘green’ fuel

Photo via Wikimedia  -  Addenbrooke's Hospital, with its incinerator chimney on the left.

Abortion -  By Daniel James Devine  -  Posted March 24, 2014, 02:20 p.m. -  World

Government-run hospitals in the United Kingdom have been burning the bodies of hundreds of aborted and miscarried babies in incinerators designed to heat their facilities. The practice of including fetal remains among trash dumped into “waste-to-energy” furnaces has gone on for several years, and was uncovered in a Channel 4 Dispatches television news investigation that will air Monday night.

The UK Department of Health on Sunday proclaimed an immediate ban on the fetal incineration practice, according to The Telegraph. A department health official and member of parliament, Daniel Poulter, called the practice “totally unacceptable.”

Ten medical facilities operated under the National Health Service admitted they burned fetal remains along with trash, and two hospitals used the bodies in waste-to-energy incinerators. The Telegraph said Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge incinerated 797 babies under 13 weeks of gestation at its waste-to-energy plant, and told the mothers the bodies had been “cremated.”

The Addenbrooke’s incinerator is part of the hospital’s “Think Green” program to reduce waste and cut carbon emissions. According to the hospital’s website, the ash from the incinerator was scheduled to be used as a concrete additive beginning in July 2013. Addenbrooke’s previously provoked criticism in 2006 after news broke that the hospital was saving money by cremating babies in the same incinerator used for trash.

Another hospital, Ipswich, in the county of Suffolk, incinerated 1,101 bodies in its own energy plant. The hospital said the fetal remains had been brought from other medical facilities by a private contractor. Ipswich cremates the remains of babies from its own facility, but does not incinerate them for energy, a spokeswoman said.

“While the vast majority of hospitals are acting in the appropriate way, that must be the case for all hospitals and the Human Tissue Authority has now been asked to ensure that it acts on this issue without delay,” Poulter told The Telegraph.

Channel 4 found that 27 UK medical facilities have incinerated at least 15,500 fetal remains following abortions or miscarriages in the past two years, either for cremation or fuel purposes.

The disposal of fetal tissue following abortions is a secretive practice in the United States as well. Medical waste companies often collect and dispose of the babies’ remains. In other cases, abortion center staffers may bag and dump the bodies into waste bins—or FedEx them overnight to processing centers where the tissue is sold or given to researchers, as WORLD reported in 2011.   

What has this world come to? First Flavor enhancers… now fuel? 

Aborted fetuses from Canada were burned at waste facility to power Oregon homes

Horrifying: Bodies of Aborted Babies Burned to Power Homes ...

Video: Oregon commission orders stop on using dead babies to generate power 

Boycott PepsiCo… Here Is Why and Why You Should Be Concerned For More Than One Reason! 

Senomyx: Pepsi Ignores Criticism on Use of Aborted Cells in Research

Technorati Tags: Hospitals,UK,Britain,Fetuses Atrocities,Babies,Abortions,Greenies,Green Fuel,Oregon,Flavor Enhancers,PepsiCo,China,Senomyx,Wake-Up,Watch the Other Hand,Stand-Up

Bart Stupak’s Pig In a Poke

Fool or Liar… You Decide!

Nice Deb: I’ve held off on commenting on Bart Stupak because everything that needed to be said about him was said four years ago, and really, who wants to revisit that unpleasant, painful memory? I really don’t. It’s Lent, and I should be in a forgiving, charitable mood.

But then I remember how he was our only hope of defeating the ObamaCare monstrosity as he held out for statutory prohibitions on abortion funding. And he settled instead for a transparently fake fig-leaf of an executive order that was unconstitutional and obviously fraudulent.

As a result his  political career came crashing to an end and now he’s telling us  he’s unhappy and feeling “double-crossed.” Was there ever a more aptly named congressman?

Today, as a private citizen, I’m proud to stand with the Green and Hahn families and their corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, in seeking to uphold our most cherished beliefs that we, as American citizens, should not be required to relinquish our conscience and moral convictions in order to implement the Affordable Care Act. …

[W]e received an ironclad commitment that our conscience would remain free and our principles would be honored. With our negotiations completed and our legislative intent established by the colloquy, we agreed to an executive order directing federal agencies to respect America’s longstanding prohibitions on government funding of abortion and most relevant here, to respect longstanding protections for individuals and organizations conscientiously opposed to participating in or facilitating abortions.

I was deeply concerned and objected to the HHS mandate that required all health plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including four drugs and devices that could terminate human life at its earliest stages by preventing an embryo’s implantation in the womb. The FDA’s own labeling statements, as well as other studies, indicate that drugs such as the 5-day-after pill (Ella), as well as intrauterine devices (IUDs), may operate this way. The Greens and the Hahns cannot, in good conscience, risk subsidizing actions that may take human life.

He was also promised that no federal funding would go to pay for abortion under the health reform plans, yet that of course is happening. All of this was as predictable as the sun rising in the East.

Here’s what I said on March 21, 2010 – the Day Stup caved.

I can tell you right now; this won’t be worth the piece of paper it’s printed on. There is no one in politics today who is more viciously pro-abortion than Barack Obama, and every statement he makes comes with an expiration date.  If Obama was willing to lie to the Pope to his face about abortion, he certainly has no compunction about lying to Bart Stupak and his pro life stalwarts.

Tom Price called it “a pig in a poke” because he naively thought you couldn’t override legislation with an executive order. Way back in 2010 – that was considered beyond the pale.

A clearly disgusted Doug Ross, cut loose:

This bill fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the people; and it does so in a despicably evil way. Health care will, there is no doubt, be wielded as a political weapon to reward and punish.

Congratulations, Bart Stupak and your so-called “Pro-Life” Democrat Caucus, you’ve sentenced the unborn generations of this country to misery, poverty and economic ruin. Way to stay true to your beliefs.

You aren’t pro-life, you’re low-lives.

Andrew McCarthy addressed the constitutionality  of the EO deal:

The Susan B. Anthony List observation that EOs can be rescinded at the president’s whim is of course true. This particular EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impoundfunds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can’t use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause.

Charles Krauthammer called the EO “worthless” and called Stupak’s cave “disappointing”…He said, “this is nationalizing health care. As of tonight, health insurance companies become agents of the government. Obama will be remembered as the father of nationalized health care.”

Michelle Malkin introduced us to next Congressman in Michigan’s 1st congressional district.

Meet Dan Benishek, Stupak’s GOP challenger in Michigan’s 1st congressional district. His campaign slogan: “You deserve better.”

The Daily Caller: Obama’s executive order that satisfied Stupak does absolutely nothing.

Of course, we were just a bunch of conservative crybabies bawling about being outmaneuvered by the clever and crafty ObaMessiah. After all ObamaCare was going to cover 30 million more people for less money and everybody would be able to keep their plans and keep their doctors and pay an average of $2,500 per family less a year in premiums.

The always behind the curve Bart Stupak continues to believe “the Affordable Care Act is critical to reforming our health care markets and providing a critical safety net for millions…”

Whatever, dude.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Liars,Fools,EO's,Fraud,ACA,AFfordable Care Act,Stupak,Hobby Lobby,Manipulation,Healthcare,Stupidity,PPACA,Lies,Choices,Unconstitutional,Bart Stupak,Conestoga Wood

More Black Babies Aborted Than Born in NYC

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH/EIB: If I may get solemn and serious, as this requires, there is shocking news out of New York. I don't know how shocking it is, but it's really bad, and it's Cybercast news service, but the actual source of this is the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  So this is a city source: "In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758)..."

So out of a possible 56,000 black babies in New York City in 2012, 31,000 were aborted and 25,000 were killed, "and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in" New York City. This is shocking.  Let me run these numbers by you again, because I know they're tough to follow on radio and I screwed up the addition.  So there were, give or take, 56,000 black pregnancies in New York City 2012.

And 31,000 of the 56,000 were aborted and 25,000 were born.  The 31,000 aborted was almost 50% of the total number of abortions, but the African-American population is only, what, 11 to 13%.  These are striking numbers, and this is... Dare I go there?  Yes, I do.  This is exactly what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she came up with the whole notion of Planned Parenthood and eugenics. 

I've always been amazed that the white, liberal elite champion Margaret Sanger, when it wouldn't take anything for Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons to go back and figure out who she is what she really wanted. How in the world there's any support for whatever Margaret Sanger attached her name to is beyond my ability to comprehend.  Well, no it's not, because I know the left. Abortion is the sacrament to them.  But this is just...

These people that are relying on the Democrat Party to protect them to take care of them, to guard them against whatever extremism might be coming their way from conservative Republicans, are wiping themselves out -- with the support of and the recommendation of the Democrat Party -- which puts abortion in top two of the most important issues going.  It's just amazing here, and when you look at the reality of this and then you understand who it is they blame for their lot in life and their plight?

"The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics." Now, you'd have to say this is shocking news, and you've got Democrat Party advocacy behind it.  You've got Democrat Party identity behind it -- and if you'd add all the other abortions that Democrats are having, you may have a little bit better understanding of why they're so eager for amnesty, and you might understand why the US birth rate is now dipping below replacement levels, which has all kinds of bad connotations to it, not the least of which are economic. 

END TRANSCRIPT

CNSNews: NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born

Abortion, Margaret Sanger and Eugenics

Technorati Tags: Abortion,Eugenics,Black Babies,Babies,Murder,New York,NYC,Planned Parenthood,Margaret Sanger,Wake-up,Rush Limbaugh,Fabians,Progressivism

Fantastic Video: Heritage Foundation On The Ground At March For Life 2014 – New Poll: 62% of Americans Now Believe Abortion is Morally Wrong

Marchers braved the cold and snow in Washington, DC today for the annual March for Life. The Heritage Foundation was on the ground to capture the event and grabbed some amazing footage and interviews.

Video: Fantastic Video: Heritage Foundation On The Ground At March For Life 2014

New Poll: 62% of Americans Now Believe Abortion is Morally Wrong

Examiner: A new Knights of Columbus/Marist poll released Wednesday shows that more than six in 10 Americans believe that abortion is morally wrong.

Sixty-two percent of those polled believed that abortion is morally wrong, and only 36 percent found it morally acceptable. Two percent of Americans indicated that it was not a moral issue.

Fifty-three percent of respondents said they believe life begins at conception.

The poll shows that most Americans choose a more moderate position on abortion, but believe it should be restricted.

Support for restrictions on abortion includes 79 percent supporting a 24-hour waiting period, 58 percent supporting a woman receiving an ultrasound before her abortion and 80 percent supporting parental notification for underage patients.

Even respondents who identify themselves as strongly pro-choice indicated that they do not believe in unrestricted access to abortions.

Sixty-four percent of strongly pro-choice Americans agreed that a patient should wait 24 hours before an abortion and consult with professionals, 62 percent support parental notification and 68 percent believe doctors who perform abortions should be required to have hospital admitting privileges.

The release of the poll coincides with the National March for Life in Washington.

Technorati Tags: Heritage Foundation,Polls,Abortion,March for Life,Right of Life,Pro-Life,Morality,Changing Winds,Personhood,Life,Babies,Washington D.C.

Vatican Court: No Communion For Nancy Pelosi

JoshuaPundit: The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, the highest court at the Vatican has ruled that House minority leader Rep.Nancy Pelosi should not receive communion as a Catholic until she changes her advocacy of abortion on demand.

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal said that Pelosi should be denied communion because she is not in a state of grace.

The Cardinal cites Canon law 915 which states that Catholics who are continue to openly continue “in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Cardinal Burke said Mrs. Pelosi fits the definition.

“Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied,” he said, the Western Center for Journalism reported. “This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic.”

“This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must — in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family,” he said.

In other words, Cardinal Burke is calling Rep. Nancy Pelosi a class A hypocrite.

I am not a Catholic, but I can't help but reflect on the justice of this. Not only is Nancy Pelosi an outspoken advocate of abortion on demand, but she also is a strong proponent of taking away the religious freedom of Catholics and Catholic institutions who do follow Church law in this matter by forcing them to subsidize abortions and abortificants under the diktats of ObamaCare. So not only is she involved in what the Catholic Church considers sin itself, but in attempting to force others into sin.

I'm not sure Rep. Pelosi even goes to confession and receives communion, but she has repeatedly referred to herself as a 'devout Catholic'. She's gotten away with that lie for years, unchallenged. This should destroy that, and I would hope that if it continues to persist,the Church would proceed to excommunication.

Technorati Tags: Catholics,Vatican,Nancy Pelosi,abortificants,Rome,Pelosi,religion,Life,Abortion,Choice,Hypocrite,Common Sense,Catholic Church,Excommunication,Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke,ObamaCare,Christianity

Forum: Do you agree with recent legislation in several states limiting late term abortions?

Watcher of Weasels/Forum:  Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day.

As you may know, a number of states including Texas have placed major restrictions on abortions performed after 20 weeks. This week’s question: Do you agree with recent legislation in several states limiting late term abortions?

Rhymes With Right: I support these restrictions wholeheartedly. After all, they are consistent with Roe and its rationale that the state acquires a stronger right to regulate abortion the closer the child is to viability — because that child is undoubtedly a living human being that the state can and should protect.

Now some may point out Roe uses a trimester system for determining when a state may regulate abortion. Unfortunately for supporters of abortion, that logic was not based upon constitutional law, but upon the state of medical science in 1973. But over the last four decades, we have seen advances that make 20-22 weeks the point at which a child in utero becomes viable. As such, the courts are going to have to grapple with the reality that the bad law found in Roe is also bad science as well. As one of my professors (an ACLU board member at the time) agreed with me back during the Reagan years, the reliance of the Blackmun controlling opinion in Roe on medicine rather than the constitution makes Roe a decision inevitably on a collision course with itself. Well, today we have reached the point of collision.

So yes, these laws (including those in conservative hotbeds like New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts) will be challenged and some of them may be overturned at the District or Circuit Court levels. That will put them on course for the Supreme Court — which will have three choices. What they will not do is overturn the notion of abortion as a legal right — doing so would upset too many other cases because they depend upon the reasoning of Roe. So while the morally and constitutionally correct thing would be to strike down Roe as bad law, that won’t happen.They will either have to constitutionalize medicine as it stood in 1973, remove all restrictions from abortion, or (and this is the best choice) declare that advances in medicine have changed the time and manner for regulating abortion. What the Supreme Court will do will be dependent upon the whims of Justice Kennedy and any changes that take place in the court’s lineup between now and some future decision day in these cases.

Liberty’s Spirit: I have to say, along with 80% of the USA, that third trimester abortions are infanticide. 60% of society also thinks that second trimester abortions are infanticide as well. Science has proven that babies feel pain, suck their thumbs, play, burp, hiccup, respond to music and even their mother’s voices by the end of the 5th month of gestation. It is ignorant of the pro-abortion groups to continue to simply say that the only issue here is the right of the mother to do what she wants with her body. They fail to acknowledge that by the end of the second trimester there are two viable human lives at stake and that is exactly what makes this issue such a moral and ethical conundrum. Additionally the pro-abortionists fail to acknowledge that NO right is absolute. It is always a balancing act between competing interests. The same should be for abortion; the right(s) of the mother to life versus the right of a viable baby to be born.

I do not think that restrictions on late term abortions are necessarily good or bad. Quite frankly I think it depends on exactly what the exceptions happen to be. There are terrible genetic anomalies, which cannot be seen until after the 5th month of gestation. Sometimes there are such painful choices to be made during a pregnancy that it is simply heartrendering and these decision must be private. But for some advocates, on both sides of the issues, in order to get their own way, they like to make these issues simple but these issues are anything but simple or always clear.

Not all babies develop normally and at times terrible tragedies occur. There is no point in a baby developing without a brain or kidneys to be born. If they were born to what end? What about genetic testing for diseases like tay-sachs? Are the results of these tests known before the end of the 5th month? What is the point of allowing such horrible suffering to occur? What is the point of such a terrible death? If there is a more humane way for all to end the suffering then so be it.

But there are also additional issues with unfettered abortion. Gendercide, and the disrespect of the right to life of the disabled. While gendercide is illegal in the west, pro-abortion groups do not denounce it. Babies diagnosed with Down syndrome have a 98% chance of being aborted. Basically the disabled are thought to be less worthy of life. Doctors also think they know everything about the life of the disabled but they have been proven terribly wrong over the past decades too. Gendercide will lead to economic instability and procreative issues for future generations. Dehumanizing the disabled has immediate consequences for human society. Only the Nazis in modern history felt the disabled unworthy of life.

A major part of the problem with abortion is that to kill we need to see our victim as not human. The pro-abortion groups try to tell society that the child growing in the womb is not a person, or that the disabled are less entitled to life, or that its OK to decide you don’t want to give birth to a girl. The reality is that this attitude reaches down into the heart of humanity, and characterizes a civilization. To dehumanize the unborn, to make this an easy question with an easy answer, is to dehumanize all of us. Is this the legacy that we want to leave our posterity?

JoshuaPundit: I’m hardly surprised that the ‘right’ to murder a baby over 20 weeks old who was conceived via consensual sex, poses no danger to the mother’s health and is developed enough to feel pain and and shock at being ripped out of the womb would not be thought of as ‘radical’. After all, look the proponent of infanticide whom the American people not only voted in as president but actually re-elected.His stance on abortion is not much different than Dr. Gosnell’s except he favored doing it in somewhat cleaner surroundings.

There’s no question these new laws will be challenged, and I’m not certain they’ll survive – we’ll have to see. But the fact that something like this would even be controversial at all, let alone our embrace of politicians that regard something like this as controversial and make political capital out of it  is..unholy. I can’t think of any other word for it. And I am by no means a hardliner who wants to see all abortion criminalized.

The Glittering Eye: Back when the Supreme Court initially decided Roe v. Wade, my immediate reaction was that the viability approach that the Court had relied on would result in abortion activists waging a losing war with technology. The recent controversy over a law limiting abortions after 20 weeks in Texas is just the most recent battle in that war.

I find it really fascinating that the Texas legislature’s position, actually a pretty moderate one and consistent not only with the laws of most other states but quite in alignment with public opinion nationally, is being portrayed by a compliant press as a radical position while a radical position, the one being taken by abortion activists and oddly inconsistent with the actual law of the land which has never held an unlimited right to abortion, is being portrayed as moderate and commonsensical.

The Independent Sentinel: I do agree with limiting late-term abortions. After seeing sonograms, I don’t know why everyone doesn’t agree with me. Babies are viable at 20 weeks and that should be the cutoff with the proviso that exceptions be allowed in cases of rape, incest or if a woman’s life is in danger.

For a woman who can’t make up her mind by 20 weeks, why should we justify abortion so she can rectify her “mistake?”

I am very tired of women calling their babies fetuses when they want to kill them but babies when they are looking forward to giving birth. It’s rationalization run amok.

Why did we bother prosecuting Kermit Gosnell if we are going to allow the murder of babies up to the moment-of-birth? What’s the difference between the two really?

We treat animals better in this country. Can you imagine how crazed animal lovers would be if we said that in order to reduce the dog & cat population, we were going to perform a partial-birth abortion on as many as possible. A partial-birth abortion, which is the means by which doctors abort late-term babies, requires the person performing the abortion to randomly pull out the baby in parts. It’s savage and we wouldn’t do it to cats & dogs.

While several states are limiting late-term abortions, we have governors like Andrew Cuomo of New York who wants abortion to the moment-of-birth enshrined in the state constitution as a civil right for political expediency.

The trend of limiting late-term abortions has peaked. Too many women believe they have the right to kill any baby in their womb because it’s their body. Unfortunately, a lot of men are only too willing to go along with them.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Uh, any “bortions after 20 weeks seems like baby killing… not Choice.

Well, there you have it.

Related: 

Late Term Abortion Supporters In Texas Chant "Hail Satan!"  Late Term Abortion Supporters In Texas Chant "Hail Satan!" 

Rick Perry:  Late-term abortion ban “is going to pass”

HORRIFYING: Hidden Camera Catches NYC abortion worker telling woman to “flush it” if baby is born alive 

Planned Parenthood’s Roots

Abortion Survivor Blasts Obama

The Negro Project 

Video:  Margaret Sanger

Abortion, Margaret Sanger and Eugenics

Obama’s 5 Most Controversial Statements About Abortion and ‘Women’s Rights’ During His Planned Parenthood Speech  -  A portion of the above text comes from the White House’s official transcript of the speech. This story has been updated.

The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion Factory 

Philadelphia DA calls abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell a ‘monster’ after he cuts deal for life in prison without parole or right to appeal 

Startling ruling in Gosnell abortion trial

Networks Give Rutgers Scandal 41 Minutes, Gosnell Abortion Horrors ‘0’ 

Degradation of cultural standards, religion, tradition, and moral decency are always at the heart of cultural decline…

Tiny Baby

Protecting Babies Who Survive Abortions

What do Beethoven, Justin Bieber and Tim Tebow Have in Common?

Technorati Tags: late term abortion,abortion,Watcher's Council,pro-life,pro-choice,murder,Life,godless,secularism,SCOTUS,Kermit Gosnell,choices,gendercide,God,religion,indoctrination,PLanned Parenthood,Roe v. Wade,babies,infanticide,Life is a Gift,Progressivism,Margaret Sanger,Obamaland,society

Late Term Abortion Supporters In Texas Chant "Hail Satan!"

Video:  Testimony at the Capitol part 2... 7-2-13

JoshuaPundit: This is creepy even to someone like me, whose by no means wants abortion outlawed.

Outside the Texas state capitol in Austin, a Christian woman, an obvious pro-lifer is speaking about her beliefs vis a vis abortion ...and at some points she's almost drowned out by late term abortion fans chanting 'Satan!'.

The capitol of Texas where the legislature meets is located in Austin, which is quite different from most of Texas and is known by most Texans as 'Austin-tatious'. Leftist loons abound.

Since the reality of what late term abortions actually consist of surfaced in the Gosnell trial, a number of states have passed laws limiting late term abortions.

In Texas, where a local Dr. Gosnell clone surfaced recently, the House State Affairs Committee passed a pro-life bill to ban abortions in the state after 20 weeks of pregnancy and hold abortion facilities accountable for obeying health and safety laws. The law is set to got to the state senate, where it will probably pass, although there have been the usual rabid demonstrations from the Democrats, whom I suppose at this point we could call the party of abortion.

I have no problem with limiting abortions to 20 weeks ( FIVE MONTHS) unless the mother's life is endangered or there are other special circumstances the law provides for. The other provisions, which are going to limit the number of abortion clinics has good points and bad points. It will eliminate butcher shops like Dr. Gosnell's but it will conceivably make it more difficult for some women in outlaying areas to terminate a pregnancy.Planned Parenthood, of course, will still be around.

On the other hand, there's always the option of traveling a bit or simply being more cautious about getting pregnant, and it's also a fact that no hospital is going to refuse to provide and abortion for someone without means or who is the victim of non-consensual sex.
But to hear people who favor abortion on demand chanting 'Satan!' ? That puts things in an entirely different perspective. If this is what it's come to...

UPDATE: Well, well...it appears that a number of these protesters are being shipped in and paid for their loathsome efforts.

Related: 

Watch: Abortion Supporters Chant ‘Hail Satan!’ While Pro-Life Activists Sing ‘Amazing Grace’ Outside Texas Capitol

Anti-Abortion Group Releases 2nd ‘Gendercide’ Video Showing Planned Parenthood’s Alleged Sex-Selection Abortion Assistance

Technorati Tags: late term abortion,Satan,abortion,Texas,liberals,Life,pro-choice,pro-life,God's laws,God,babies,crazies,Dr. Gosnell,Gosnell,murder,choices,creepy

NBC Al Roker Has Epiphany… His 14-Year Old Daughter Can Now Get Morning After Pill

Marion Algier – Ask Marion – Cross-posted at THITW – h/t to TLA

 "Al" Albert Lincoln Roker, Jr., television weatherman and co-host of NBC's Today Show had an epiphany on today’s show (06.11.13), about a week late… or is that perhaps years late?… realizing that his 14-year-old daughter can now go get the morning after pill without his permission or even notification.

America has become a country of low and mis-informed voters fed by a media comprised primarily of either the ‘ideologically motivated’ or equally low and mis-informed people… or both, that for many Americans are their only source of news and information.

I mean really, Al… Albeit ‘Obama Central’', you work in the talk show/news industry; have ‘with it’ first and second wives (Deborah Roberts) and you have young children, a daughter.  Hello??

So which is Al… ‘ideologically motivated’, low and mis-informed… or both?  You be the judge.

Video:  Remember:…Weatherman Al Roker 'Yells Down' VP Joe Biden in 2nd Inauguration Parade (He and media pals… like MSNBC ‘quiver down my leg’ Chris Mathews go nuts)

Court Rules: Girls of Any Age Can Buy Morning-After Pill… Without Parental Consent

The brief order issued by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan permitted two-pill versions of emergency contraception to immediately be sold without restrictions, but the court refused to allow unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step until it decides the merits of the government's appeal. It did not specify why the two-pill versions were being allowed now, though it said the government failed to meet the requirements necessary to block the lower-court decision.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Allison Price said the government was reviewing the court's order.

Appeals on both sides are pending…

CHICAGO, IL – APRIL 05: This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive on April 5, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. Credit: Getty Images

This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive generic version

TheBlaze: NEW YORK (AP) — Girls of any age can buy generic versions of emergency contraception without a prescription while the federal government appeals a judge’s ruling allowing the sales, according to a ruling Wednesday by a federal appeals court.

The brief order issued by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan permitted two-pill versions of emergency contraception to immediately be sold without restrictions, but the court refused to allow unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step until it decides the merits of the government’s appeal. It did not specify why the two-pill versions were being allowed now, though it said the government failed to meet the requirements necessary to block the lower-court decision.

The order was welcomed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, where President Nancy Northup called it a “historic day for women’s health.”

“Finally, after more than a decade of politically motivated delays, women will no longer have to endure intrusive, onerous and medically unnecessary restrictions to get emergency contraception,” she said in a statement.

The center’s litigation director, Julie Rickelman, said the government has two weeks to decide whether to appeal the 2nd Circuit’s decision on the stay to the full appeals court or the Supreme Court. Even if there is no appeal of the stay ruling, it was unclear how soon drugstores would move the two-pill emergency contraception from behind the counter. She said she hoped the pills would be available without restriction within a month.

“What it does mean is that generic two-pill products are going to be readily available to women without age restrictions, on any drugstore shelf,” Rickelman said. “It’ll be like buying Tylenol. You’ll be able to go get it off the drugstore shelf, no ID, at the regular counter.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Allison Price said the government was reviewing the court’s order.

CHICAGO, IL – APRIL 05: This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive on April 5, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois.

The government has appealed U.S. District Judge Edward Korman’s underlying April 5 ruling, which ordered levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives be made available without a prescription, over-the-counter and without point-of-sale or age restrictions.

The government asked Korman to suspend the effect of that ruling until the appeals court could decide the case, but the judge declined, saying the government’s decision to restrict sales was “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified and contrary to agency precedent.” He also said there was no basis to deny the request to make the drugs widely available.

The government had argued that “substantial market confusion” could result if Korman’s ruling was enforced while appeals were pending, only to be later overturned.

The Food and Drug Administration was preparing in 2011 to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill with no limits when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled her own scientists in an unprecedented move.

The FDA announced in early May that Plan B One-Step could be sold without a prescription to those 15 and older. Its maker, Teva Women’s Health, plans to begin those sales soon. Sales had previously been limited to those who were at least 17.

Korman later ridiculed the FDA changes, saying they established “nonsensical rules” that favored sales of the Plan B One-Step morning-after pill and were made “to sugarcoat” the government’s appeal.

He also said they place a disproportionate burden on blacks and the poor by requiring a prescription for less expensive generic versions of the drug bought by those under age 17 and by requiring those over age 17 to show proof-of-age identification at a pharmacy.

Plan B One-Step is the newer version of emergency contraception – the same drug, but combined into one pill instead of two.

Technorati Tags: Roker,contraception,media,MSM,low-informed,NBC,dumbing-down of America,FDA,parenting,children,abortion,Sebelius,HHS,Obamaland,Big Brother,Big Pharma,society,Christians,MSNBC,pharmaceuticals,religion,levonorgestrel-based,culture,morality,ideology

Philadelphia DA calls abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell a 'monster' after he cuts deal for life in prison without parole or right to appeal

"Any doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is a murderer and a monster."  - Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams

PHILADELPHIA (TheBlaze/AP) — A Philadelphia abortion doctor convicted of killing three babies who were born alive in his grimy clinic agreed Tuesday to give up his right to an appeal and faces life in prison but will be spared a death sentence. The news comes just one day after Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of the babies who were delivered alive and killed with scissors.

In a case that became a flashpoint in the nation’s abortion debate, former clinic employees testified that Gosnell routinely performed illegal abortions past Pennsylvania’s 24-week limit, that he delivered babies who were still moving, whimpering or breathing, and that he and his assistants dispatched the newborns by “snipping” their spines, as he referred to it (read TheBlaze’s full coverage here, including information on the victims).

Prosecutors agreed to two life sentences without parole or appeals, and Gosnell was to be sentenced Wednesday in the death of the third baby, an involuntary manslaughter conviction in the death of a patient and hundreds of lesser counts including infanticide, racketeering and more than 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s abortion laws by performing third-term abortions or failing to counsel women 24 hours in advance.

Prosecutors had sought the death penalty because Gosnell killed more than one person, and his victims were especially vulnerable given their age. But Gosnell’s own advanced age had made it unlikely he would ever be executed before his appeals ran out.

Gosnell has said he considered himself a pioneering inner-city doctor who helped desperate women get late-term abortions. Defense lawyer Jack McMahon said before the sentencing deal that his client’s bid for acquittal was a battle.

Philadelphia DA calls abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell a 'monster'

FOX NEWS/PHILADELPHIA: – The Philadelphia abortion doctor was sentenced Wednesday to a third life term for killing an aborted baby that he described as so big it could "walk to the bus."

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was convicted earlier this week of first-degree murder in the deaths of three babies born alive, then stabbed with scissors. He was given two life sentences Tuesday in a deal with prosecutors that spared him a potential death sentence, and the third sentence was handed down Wednesday.

"Any doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is a murderer and a monster."  - Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams

The Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams released a statement Wednesday afternoon calling the case "arguably the most gruesome" he's seen.

"I will not mince words, Kermit Gosnell is a monster. Any doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is a murderer and a monster."

Gosnell was also sentenced to 2 1/2 to five years in prison for the 2009 overdose death of a patient. The sentences are consecutive, meaning Gosnell, 72, will spend the rest of his life in prison.

The case has made Gosnell a flashpoint in the nation's bitter debate over legalized abortion.

Prosecutors argued that Gosnell savagely killed late-term babies born alive by severing their spines, and taught several staff members the technique. Nine former clinic workers were convicted in the case, and four others pleaded guilty to murder.

Despite the notoriety of the case, Gosnell has seemed oddly serene in court during the two-month trial, and apparently sees himself as a medical pioneer and tireless advocate for inner-city patients.

"I wanted to be an effective, positive force in the minority community," Gosnell told The Philadelphia Daily News in a 2010 interview, when he predicted he would be "vindicated" of the allegations in a harrowing grand jury report. He chose not to address the judge during Wednesday's sentencing.

But prosecutors said he grew increasingly reckless as he accumulated millions of dollars from his rogue clinic, which was described as a "pill mill" for addicts by day and an "abortion mill" by night.

The jury spent 10 days deliberating before finding that Gosnell had killed babies or had them killed. And the jury found him complicit in the death of the 41-year-old patient, a Virginia woman who was repeatedly sedated by his untrained medical assistants.

Gosnell was also convicted of hundreds of abortion law violations for performing illegal, third-term abortions or failing to counsel women and teens. Gosnell was acquitted in the deaths of four other infants.

Prosecutors have declined to comment on the verdict, citing a gag order that was expected to be lifted Wednesday when Gosnell's sentence is finalized.

Prosecutors had planned to seek the death penalty because Gosnell killed more than one person and his victims were especially vulnerable given their age. But Gosnell's own advanced age had made it unlikely he would ever be executed before his appeals ran out.

Gosnell did not testify, and called no witnesses in his defense. But McMahon branded prosecutors “elitist” and “racist” for pursuing his client, who is black and whose patients were mostly poor minorities.

Gosnell's lawyer, Jack McMahon, said his client accepts the verdict and isn't sorry he went to trial. He said Gosnell gave up a somewhat better deal early on but wanted to air the issues in court and is satisfied that he did so.

"He wanted this case aired out in a courtroom and it got aired out in a courtroom in a fair way. And now he's accepting what will happen. He's an intelligent guy," said McMahon, who said Gosnell would now plead to federal drug charges that are still pending.

The sentencing deal, reached after hours of terse negotiations Tuesday, spares Gosnell's family the task of pleading for his life in court, McMahon said. Gosnell has six children, the youngest of them a teenager born to his third wife, who has also pleaded guilty in the case.

"He's a proud man. To bring his young family into court was something he did not want to do," McMahon said.

A 2011 grand jury investigation into Gosnell's alleged prescription drug trafficking led to the gruesome findings about his abortion clinic. During an FBI raid, authorities found 47 aborted fetuses stored in clinic freezers, jars of tiny severed feet, bloodstained furniture and dirty medical instruments, along with cats roaming the premises.

Prosecution experts said the Delaware teen carrying Baby A, whose death Gosnell was sentenced in Wednesday, was nearly 30 weeks pregnant when Gosnell aborted her fetus. A second baby was said to be alive for about 20 minutes before a clinic worker snipped the neck. A third was born in a toilet and was moving before another clinic employee severed the spinal cord, according to testimony.

A fourth baby let out a whimper before Gosnell cut the neck, prosecutors alleged. Gosnell was acquitted in that baby's death, the only one of the four in which no one testified to seeing the baby killed.

McMahon has argued that none of the fetuses was born alive and that any movements were posthumous twitching or spasms.

However, the gruesome details of Gosnell’s operation came out more than two years ago during a grand jury investigation of prescription drug trafficking. Authorities raiding Gosnell’s clinic for drugs instead found bags and bottles of fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments and cats roaming the premises.

Partisans on both sides of the nation’s polarized abortion debate were quick to weigh in after the verdict. Abortion foes said the case helped to illustrate the disturbing reality of abortion.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Related:

America’s Warning

VERDICT: Jury decides fate of Gosnell

Technorati Tags: Philadelphia,Dr. Kermit Gosnell,abortion,murder,infanticide,late term abortions,torture