” I’ll leave it to them to explain why it doesn’t“
I’ll do just that. Yeah, this ranks right up there with Democrats re-writing the definition of the word “access” when it comes to birth control” (e.g., not that you can’t buy it for yourself but “denying access” in Democrat-speak means “they can get it “free” on OUR dime”).
So here they go again. Josh Earnest said concerning the new “rule” that prohibits The Various States from denying Planned Parenthood money (think “strings attached” on steroids). Here, Earnest tries to redefine what Conservatives believe (like they’ve done with the Little Sisters of the Poor Catholic nuns that believe that providing abortifacients is a grave moral sin):
…I would say to that that we’re talking about federal funding and what the federal government can do with that federal funding. And so this is actually empowering patients to make their own choices about their health care. And that is a principle that conservatives — that should really resonate with conservatives. And I guess I’ll leave it to them to explain why it doesn’t.
No, it’s not “empowering” and I’ll ‘mansplain it to ya. Empowering’ meaningis that they can make choices INDEPENDENTLY. Look, I believe abortion is murdering the unborn, but it is law right now (and in a democratic Republic, NOTHING is ever settled, just like in science). But INDEPENDENTLY means that I don’t have to participate. Earnest is delighting in the fact that I must via my taxes be complicit in that killing. So no, it doesn’t “resonate” with me.
The bigger problem and a more important issue (although not one from the “Pen and Phone Administration”)? WHY is a mere federal agency making a “rule” (i.e., “administrative law”) that the States should obey? Doesn’t the Constitution say WHO should be making this kind of decision?
Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
One again, ALL means ALL. That does not include HHS, an Executive Branch department. It is NOT the US House and it is NOT the US Senate. So there, Josh Earnest, there’s TWO (and rather large ones) reasons why it doesn’t. But then again, you have no problem with either one.
And that’s also why I have no problem with Trump radically scaling back (if he does and can) what the Executive Branch does.
