Remember when Santorum skewered Romney over the Massachusetts healthcare law, specifically the mandate, and Romney told him "It's not worth getting angry about"...
Turns out, it's just as we thought when he said it: 'Yes, it is worth getting angry about!'
The recent HHS mandate under Obamacare dealing with contraception and abortifacients and it's imposition on Catholic organizations, whose teachings deeply oppose these practices, has initiated a firestorm of outrage throughout not only the Catholic community, but the Christian community in mass and simply those who still believe in the First Amendment, particularly the free exercise clause.
To compound that, a recently rediscovered piece of information that many may not have known about reveals yet more in common between Romneycare and Obamacare than Romney should be comfortable with. We already know Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of Romneycare, has said there's "zero difference" between the two, or more emphatically proclaiming, "they're the same f---ing bill." But a LifeSiteNews.com piece from December 9th of 2005 has timely resurfaced, revealing that Romney flip-flopped on his own legislation and forced Catholic hospitals to distribute arbortifacients. Uh oh. Romneycare did it too!
In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.
The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the “morning-after pill” on the grounds of moral dissent. The Boston Globe reported that Romney’s flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill.
Shouldn't the former Massachusetts governor have checked with preexisting statutes or worked to overturn those before pushing through new legislation that otherwise led religious organizations to believe they were in the clear? That their conscientious objection remained intact and not forced into the mandate? Otherwise, it appears eerily similar to what Obama did with Catholic institutions: promise them 'this' to garner support, then give them 'that'. As Rush said yesterday, "What we have here is another telling sign of just how similar, if you will, Romneycare is to Obamacare."
And what this does... One of the reasons why I have often stated, to chagrin of the establishment and the Drive-By Media... One of the reasons that I have been of the opinion (let's put it that way) that Obama wants to run against Romney... It's not just Occupy Wall Street, which I think was created to run against Romney and to define Romney. But I think they know that there's a connection between Romneycare and Obamacare. Romney's two advisers helped the White House put theirs together, and here is another link to something happening today vis-a-vis Obamacare that has linkage to Romneycare. What this does is it takes another issue off the table...if Romney gets the nomination.
Here's more from the LifeSiteNews piece:
Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill, despite the new legislation. The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities.
“As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they’re doing have legal grounds.” (Boston Globe)
The Conference has been fighting this new legislation for several years. In 2003, in a statement to the Joint Committee on Health Care, they outlined their concern over the proposed Emergency Contraception Access Act (ECAA), stating: “It will force Catholic medical personnel to distribute contraceptives even in cases involving the risk of early abortion. It also furthers a national strategy ultimately directed towards coercing Catholic facilities to provide insurance coverage for, and to perform, abortions.”
The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.
Rush concludes, "Two things about this. One is, as far as back as 2003, you can see the Democrat Party and the American Left's design here on the Catholic Church and on the entire pro-life movement. Just use the force of the state to force them -- to require them under penalty of law -- to violate their conscience, to violate their own morality, to give away or provide abortion services. This has been going on at least since then, the attempt to co-opt and corrupt the pro-life movement." And Romneycare gave them the foot in the door.
Dr. Milton Wolf has written a piece in the Washington Times that reinforces, yes indeed, it is worth getting angry about.
Romneycare is the blueprint for Obamacare and shares its top-down, government-run fundamentals. At its core is the individual mandate that criminalizes anyone who refuses to purchase government-sanctioned health insurance. When confronted with this inconvenient reality, Mitt Romney had this stunning response: “It’s not worth getting angry about.”
The hell it’s not.
For the first time in the history of our republic, our government has demanded that every American, upon the condition of breathing, be forced to enter a legal contract with government-approved corporations. Not even King George III dared impose such control. In truth, if a government can force you to patronize companies of its choosing, the fundamental relationship between the government and the individual is irrevocably changed. If it is allowed to stand, there will be no part of your life the government cannot control and no crony it cannot enrich - with your money.
Isn’t that worth getting angry about?
Wolf expounds on Romney's conflicting insistence that he'll repeal Obamacare while "bitterly clinging to weak defenses of Romneycare," and elaborates further on the many detriments of government-run private health insurance, regardless of whether it's at the state level or federal, or even whether it's been deemed 'legal'. It's simply a bad idea and it's also 'bad medicine'.
Romneycare has increased private health care costs for patients and has created longer wait times to see a doctor. Fewer doctors in Massachusetts are willing to accept Medicare or even see new patients. Medicare and Medicaid costs also have increased, sticking taxpayers nationwide with the bill. Government regulations have further eroded the doctor-patient relationship. More than 18,000 jobs have been lost, and disposable income has suffered. The state has lost more than $25 million in private-sector investments. So much for “nothing changes for them.”
Isn’t that worth getting angry about?
Wolf also recognizes that among Romney's portrayal of being a born-again conservative, "Massachusetts’ government-run health care is an assault on conservative values." Thus, his unrelenting defense of the nonconservative program is at conflict with the way he wants us to view his electability. Not only that, but this will be a damnable weight to carry into a general election, as Wolf concludes:
Imagine the presidential debate stage. Mr. Obama says to Mitt Romney: “Governor, why is it that you’re so determined to repeal Obamacare? Are you opposed to the individual mandate? The fines imposed? The insurance company regulations? The Medicaid expansion? The increased taxes? What is it exactly? Because we adopted all of those things from you.”
What comes next could end the debate and perhaps the election just as quickly as Ronald Reagan’s “Well, there you go again” to Jimmy Carter. Mr. Obama will turn to Mr. Romney, pause for a moment and then say with a disarming smile: “Mitt, it’s not worth getting angry about.”
