Not For Some

March 24th, 2010

Reform For You, Not For Me.

Reform for you, not for some.

Dear Congresswoman Betty Sutton,

The health care reform bill you helped to move into law requires members of Congress and their office staffs to buy insurance through the state-run exchanges it creates – but we are learning that it may exempt senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to fully participate in the same way as other Americans

How is this possible?

Ms Sutton, why would anyone deeply involved in the process of writing this historic Health Reform bill be motivated to exclude themselves?

During your one and only public forum on Health Reform, the  Tele-Town Hall, you told us that you were a lawyer and that you read and understood the entire bill.  If true, then you must have known about this absurd loophole found on page 158. Why did you allow something so outrageous to go unchallenged before you voted to make it law?

What other loopholes did you miss as you carefully examined the entire bill?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Health | 1 Comment »

Actions Speak Louder

November 2nd, 2009

Betty Sutton lies about her role in federal funding of abortion.

On July 30th, 2009, Congresswoman Betty Sutton voted for the Capps Amendment which will allow federal tax-dollars to be used to fund abortions.

Just TWENTY-SEVEN days later, the congresswoman came to the citizens of OH-13 and told us we had nothing to worry about.

“…let me just first address something that you said in your, in the course of your question.  H.R. 3200 DOES NOT provide for the use of taxpayer funded, ah tax payer dollars to fund abortions.”

She then went on to state,

“…it is well understood in federal law that you can’t use taxpayer funds to fund abortion.”

Well understood?  Really? Then how is it, Congresswoman Sutton, that you, a lawyer, so boldly misunderstood the law?

Stop lying to us.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Health, Videos | Comments Off

Let’s Kill Some Babies! H.R. 3962

October 30th, 2009

Wait for it…  wait for it…  here it comes…  LIE

lies

There we go.  I knew it was only a matter of time before overwhelming proof of Sutton’s abortion lie would surface.

Tele-Town-Hall 2009

Constituent – Joe from Avon:

60% of Ohioans oppose abortion. 70% of Ohioans oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.  Both H.R. 3200 and the senate, that is the Kennedy bill, contain provisions for federal subsidies for abortion.  Will you refuse to vote for any healthcare bill that does not explicitly exclude federal funding of abortion?

Pinocchio Betty Sutton:

Thank you very much Joe. Um, let me, let me just first address something that you said in your, in the course of your question.  H.R. 3200 DOES NOT provide for the use of taxpayer funded, ah tax payer dollars to fund abortions.  And in fact it is federal law, ah that taxpayer funds are not allowed to be used to fund abortions.  Under the bill, that remains in tact.  Under the bill, federal funds will not be permitted to fund abortion.  So, I hope that that ah will, will clear up any misperception that exist that it is well understood in federal law that you can’t use taxpayer funds to fund abortion.  Thank you very much for the question.

So, Betty, if it’s “well understood” that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund abortion, why is the funding of abortion being discussed on the hill? Why was Rep. Lois Capps’ amendment included, but Stupak’s was eliminated?  Better yet, why did you vote yes on Capps, but no on Stupak?

Congressman Bart Stupak: And we’re just saying maintain the law that’s been on the books for 35 years and let’s live up to the President’s word.  No public funding for abortion in the health care plan, and we’re all happy, and we can go away.

CNS: Earlier on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the nearly 2,000-page-long final text of the House health-care bill. The bill envisions creating “exchanges” in each state that would be the only place people receiving federal health insurance subsidies would be allowed to buy insurance. It also includes an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) that would require that at least one health insurance plan in each of these exchanges cover abortions. Stupak’s proposed amendment would nullify Capps’ by stating that no federal money could pay for any part of any insurance plan that covers abortion.

NPR – Rep. Jan Schakowsky: “Comprehensive health care does include reproductive health care, prenatal and maternity care, screening for breast, cervical and other cancers or [sexually transmitted infections] abortion, contraceptive services. That these are basic health care for women [emphasis added] that we have a right to by virtue of our reproductive organs and our right to control our own bodies.”

Sounds like a lot of people missed your Tele-Town-Hall.

Catholic Online – Kristen Day, DFLA Executive Director: “I want to be clear, pro-life Democrats want to help pass health care reform but our coalition can in no- way support reform that includes tax payer funded abortions. If the leadership will remove that language, we feel confident that we can deliver enough votes to help put this much needed reform over the top in the House.”

“We believe in a big-tent Democratic Party, but to not allow Hyde language to be included in health care reform would force some pro-choice and pro-life Democrats to vote against health care reform. If we add this language, we believe we can help Speaker Pelosi get the votes to pass this legislation.”

OneNewsNow – Marjorie Dannenfelser: “It does this by funding premiums from private insurance plans that do cover elective abortions. Current law says that no federal funds may go to subsidize private health plans for elective abortion.” She concludes that “this bill would change all that.”

Earned Media: Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) announced today that they have 40 votes that will vote against the House health care reform legislation if tax payer funded abortion language is not removed from the bill.

I understand that killing children in our poor communities is right up your alley, but why go to such lengths to mislead your constituents.  Just say it like it is.  Here, I’ll help you. Repeat after me.

I, Betty Sutton, support the killing of poor children in OH-13. I promise to vote yes on any bill that will promote and or fund the elimination of poor children.

There, that wasn’t so hard.

Congresswoman Sutton, the good old days when you could freely lie and mislead the people of OH-13 have come to an end.  We are not going away.  We will hold you accountable for your words, and your action.

For the record, you never answered Joe’s question. What a surprise.

Further reading on this issue

An excerpt from : Tax Dollars Shouldn’t Fund Abortion – Wall Street Journal – Charmaine Yoest

WSJ: The Capps Amendment would side step the Hyde Amendment and other provisions in federal law. If it becomes law as part of health-care reform it would make abortion coverage a part of the public option, funnel tax dollars to private health plans that cover abortion, and ensure that every area of the country will have at least one health insurance plan that covers elective abortion. If this should happen, for the first time in more than 30 years the federal government would be in the business of funding the destruction of unborn human life.

The Capps Amendment sets up an accounting mechanism that is supposed to make sure that federal dollars do not directly pay for elective abortions. But this is a dodge. Federal dollars would still subsidize insurance plans that pay for abortions.

Here’s the actual amendment voted on by Betty Sutton’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: Capps

SUMMARY: A “compromise” amendment backed by committee chair, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) that yielded some ground to pro-life concerns about mandated abortion coverage in private plans, preemption of state abortion laws, and retention of federal conscience laws. However, it weakened the application of the Hyde Amendment funding restrictions and had provisions to ensure that abortion is included in the public plan.

In favor of Capps with a YES vote, our very own Betty Sutton!  The congresswoman’s yes vote came prior to the Tele-Town-Hall.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Health | Comments Off

Pelosi’s Puppet

October 29th, 2009

Pelosi's Puppet

Pelosi's Puppet

Let’s Review:

  • The right does not want this health reform
  • The middle does not want this health reform
  • Now, the left does not want the health reform

So, who is Betty trying to please with her “yes” vote on health reform?

Excerpt from David Swanson’s: Healthcare Hoax from Hell:

A conversation I had with Congresswoman Betty Sutton is typical. She told me that the Kucinich Amendment was no big deal and shouldn’t be paid any attention to. She said she wanted everyone to focus on the Weiner Amendment on which she planned to vote yes. Asked if there was any chance the Weiner Amendment would pass, she replied of course not.

From Congresswoman Sutton’s point of view, a bill that will fail is far more important than a life-saving measure in a bill that might pass, because she planned to vote right on the former and brag about it to her constituents. “See, I tried. I really tried.” But if Sutton’s state, Ohio, passes the bill currently making its way through the state legislature and establishes single-payer for all Ohioans, the death panels, aka health insurance companies, will sue. And without the Kucinich Amendment they will win or at least hold things up for several years and several thousand deaths.

Will Sutton or any other members of Congress fight for either of these amendments? Will any of them call out Pelosi? Forcing the Kucinich amendment back into the bill and forcing a floor vote on the Weiner amendment are admirable immediate goals (as of now Pelosi will be allowing no floor amendments of any sort), but healthcare is very complex with the devil in the details, and the details are being written by devils, blood-soaked devils. The central demand of members of Congress must be: Vote No. The reason they should have to listen must be: We will occupy your offices and prevent you from working unless you commit to voting No, but if you commit to voting No and vote No, we will consider possibly not throwing your sorry ass in the street in next year’s elections.

We may disagree with the left on why this reform must fail, but at least we’ve found some common ground in wanting it to fail. The truth is, Congresswoman Sutton is not a principled woman, and she cannot be trusted to do what’s right. No one in OH-13 should expect the Congresswoman to actually represent our concerns – left or right.

Sutton, in her pursuits of power, has become nothing more than a puppet for her party’s house leadership. Her votes go as Pelosi instructs.

For once, I am with you David Swanson. Let’s through her sorry ass in the street in next year’s elections.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Article | Comments Off

Knock, Knock…

October 28th, 2009

is anybody home?

At the conclusion of our August Tele-Town-Hall, Nichole Francis Reynolds, Sutton’s chief of staff, told us that dialogue on health reform would continue click here.  Silly me, I thought she meant that Sutton’s office would continue the dialogue on health reform.  Sixty-three days later, I see that I was wrong.

Betty Sutton and Nicole Reynolds continue the open dialogue on health reform

So, what happened?  Ms. Reynolds had always been a respectable and honest member of Sutton’s staff.  In fact, there was a time when many in this district felt that if Reynolds said is was, it was.  Those days are clearly past.  Today, Ms. Reynolds is as tainted by power as any other Washington insider.

my3×5s.blogspot.com recently posted a list of unaddressed “dialogue”.  Below are a few of the health reform questions – to view the entire list click here.

  • Why isn’t the economy our top priority instead of another government entitlement program?
  • Rep Sutton said that HR 3200 will “inject competition into the private insurance market.” Why do you not believe that opening interstate commerce for insurance providers prove to be enough competition?
  • How can private insurance providers fairly compete with a government entity which is under no pressure to make a profit, and holds the purse strings; the ability to print money?
  • Do you want health care reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?
  • You say this “public option” will be funded by premiums alone? Is this a hypothesis?
  • If the “public option” health care plan is so good, why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

To that list I add the following:

  • When the opportunity presented itself, and doing so would not have taken any additional time to implement, why didn’t you accept language that would expressly forbid abortion funding in the health reform bill?  You’ve told us time and time again this bill would not fund abortion, but you refused to vote for language to back that up. Why? read more
  • In 2007 you understood the importance of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the proper relationship between the government and the people.  Yet today, you seem perfectly comfortable riding roughshod over the founding document.  Why? read more
  • And of course, we cannot leave off the famous constitution question, “Cite the portion of the Constitution which allows the federal government to force people to buy insurance.”  read more

It’s been 63 days now (and counting) and still no dialogue, no answers, and no Sutton.  Instead, our Congresswoman’s offices hand out excesses. Here are a few of my favorites from the Lorain office:

  • “We are very busy trying to answer everyone’s questions.”
  • “We are doing the best we can.”
  • “I’ll pass along your concerns.”
  • “You’re obviously a republican.”
  • “You right wingers don’t know what you are talking about.”
  • “The congresswoman doesn’t have to answer your questions.”

With the House of Representatives poised to vote on Health Reform, Sutton must be feeling some sense of relief that this mess may soon be over.  Sorry to break it to you Betty Sue, we’re only getting started.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in From the Sutton Office, Health | 3 Comments »

Still Waiting…

October 22nd, 2009

countup

We were recently reminded that Congresswoman Betty Sutton has still not provided an answer to Matthew of North Ridgeville’s Tele-Town-Hall question:  Cite the portion of the Constitution which allows the federal government to force people to buy insurance.

In honor of this stupendous delay, we have created the Official Betty Sutton Count-Up To Answers clock!


Tags: , , ,
Posted in Betty Sutton | Comments Off

Health Care B.S.

October 13th, 2009

All the August Helath Care Meetings Were Great!

The August Helath Care Meetings Were Great!

You cannot help but laugh at this Betty Sutton story posted on umc.org

Democratic Rep. Betty Sutton says she hosted and attended many meetings in her northern Ohio district during the August recess to talk about health care reform with constituents.

What is she talking about? Where and when did all this happen?

I distinctly remember the representative spending most of the August Recess hiding from us.  Of course, I’m not a lawyer like the Congresswoman, so understanding what ‘attending many meetings in the district’ really means is probably way over my head.

“Unfortunately, I have also heard a good deal of misinformation and inaccurate interpretations of the proposals and have attempted to provide information to correct the record,” she says. “For example, rumors about death panels and government access to bank accounts have had to be repeatedly dispelled.”

What about abortion or the constitutionality of this reform plan? Are these concerns also based on inaccurate interpretations of your plan?

The opinions of her constituents differ greatly on the pending proposals, with some favoring a single-payer system and others wanting to “inject choice and competition into the system by providing consumers with the potential to choose a public option.”

“Some constituents have also indicated that they want me to vote no, regardless of what any health reform bill contains,” she says. “Many supporters have encouraged me to fight for a public option, while some opposed have issued ‘demands’ that I vote no regardless of the contents proposed.”

Some favor this, some favor that, some indicate their ideas, others DEMAND. How dare anyone in the thirteenth district DEMAND anything.

I love the way Betty paints supporters of her plan as concerned and engaged, but those others, well…

Sutton says she believes all Americans should have access to affordable quality health care.

denials

Quality!

“We should inject competition in health care reform. The way we achieve this is by creating a public option to compete with private insurers as one choice that consumers could purchase if they so desire,” the Ohio congresswoman says.

I agree.  More than 1300 private health insurance companies just isn’t quite enough competition, but if we could just add one more… Voila!

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Health | Comments Off

Dear Speaker Pelosi

October 2nd, 2009

Congresswoman Betty Sutton continues to chase the public option.

September 30th, 2009

When weighed against other ideas, the public option remains the most effective tool to bring about competition, choice, efficiency, transparency and cost reduction in the marketplace.

Public Option Letter

sutton

Betty, Since you signed it, I have a couple of questions for you.  Exactly which other ideas are we weighing your public option against? And as long as were looking at those ideas, can you show us the non-bias numbers that support your above statement?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Health | Comments Off

Cash For Fetuses

September 23rd, 2009

Betty Sutton Wants Health Care With Abortion?

Betty Sutton Wants Health Care With Abortion?

AUDIO CLIP:  Sutton On HR3200 & Abortions

The 13th district Tele-Town-Hall may have been a flop, but it did provide concrete reference points regarding Rep. Betty Sutton’s understanding of H.R. 3200 and the potential implications of the bill if passed.  For now, I won’t go as far as to say that our congresswoman lied about abortion funding, but I do question her understanding of the the complex bill.

President Obama, Secretary Sebeilus, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid and Congresswoman Sutton have repeatedly told us that the health care proposal under consideration does not include provisions to cover abortion.  Perhaps that is true, but if these supporters of the plan aren’t misleading us, then why is our legislative branch unwilling to attach language that explicitly forbids the funding of abortion.  Such amendments have come up and each time they are defeated.  Could it be that there is a little abortion in there after all?

Recently, there was an informative opinion article on abortion funding published by the Washington Times.  In that article, Charmain Yoest laid out the ways federal funding of abortion could easily entrench itself into national health reform without being written into the bill.

Yoest points out that it all comes down to the definition of health care – not today, but in the future.  H.R. 3200 may not state, “the federal government will not pay for abortion,” but it does cover health care and if groups like Planned Parenthood have their way, the definition of health care will soon include abortion.  A single change in definition by our court system will magically cause the people of Ohio’s thirteenth district to be on the hook for federally subsidized abortions.

A simple solution to block this loophole has been offered by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan.  Certainly amid her busy schedule of parades, chili cook offs, fundraisers and speaking engagements Sutton could find time to show support for Stupak’s amendment.  Not so.  In fact, when the amendments came up for a committe vote on 7/31/09 Betty voted them down.

On an amendment that would excluded any mandate for abortion coverage, except to save the
mother’s life and in cases of rape or incest.  Betty Sutton voted NO.

On an amendment specifying that no funds authorized by the Act may be used to pay for any abortion or cover the costs of any health plan that includes coverage for abortion, except to save the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest. Betty Sutton voted NO.

When asked if the representative would support Stupak’s fight for a vote on the Hyde Amendment, Betty Sutton’s office said she does not support Stupak because H.R. 3200 does not provide federal funding for abortions.

If the representative is unwilling to support Stupak or the Hyde Amendment, perhaps she could use her leadership skills to craft her own amendment to keep federal funds from paying for abortions under H.R. 3200.  After all, she told us at the Tele-Town-Hall that H.R. 3200 would not pay for abortions.  It’s time for the representative to back those words with action.  It would only take a moment and would show that she represents the values of her constituents in the 13th district.

Rep. Sutton, if you won’t support Stupak’s Amendment, you see no need for the Hyde Amendment, and you won’t speak up to demand that such language be added before the big vote, then what are we to think of you and your intentions? Are you planning another program,  perhaps “Cash for fetuses?”

It just might be time to change my opinion of you.  In the words of Congressman Joe Wilson… You Lie.

Sutton’s Record on Abortion

  • 2008 Representative Sutton supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 100% of the time.
  • 2007-2008 Representative Sutton supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 100% of the time.
  • 2007 In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Representative Sutton a grade of 100.

record data: VoteSmart.org

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Health | Comments Off

The People vs. Betty Sutton

September 14th, 2009

The 9/12 DC Tea Party should be an eye opener to our congressional representatives.  Will Betty finally listen?

Congresswoman,

On September 10th, you were quoted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer as saying:

“The costs of the status quo are unsustainable and the current system leaves far too many without care when they need it. I share President Obama’s determination to deliver meaningful health-care reform to the American people, but the details matter. I remain committed to continuing to work for a system that will provide the people I am so honored to represent with choices and affordable access to quality effective care.”

On September 12th a crowd of unprecedented size gathered at your Washington D.C. doorstep with one clear message: We don’t want your health reform (HR 3200).

Betty, it’s time for you to represent the will of the people.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Health | Comments Off

« Older Entries