Stupefyingly Oblivious

All of the fundie organizations that I follow have been opposed to health care reform from the beginning. That’s because Jesus taught us to leave the sick, the poor, and the less fortunate in the woods for the wolves to eat.

Today I received an email from Liberty Counsel, which is yet another fundie anti-ACLU. It’s titled “Florida Court Rules ‘Obamacare’ Unconstitutional”. It opens with:

Today Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida, issued a 78-page ruling that the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is unconstitutional.

It becomes an instant fundie classic when it says:

No one wants the federal government or a pencil-pushing bureaucrat in Washington policing private medical decisions.

Hey! That’s what we’ve been saying for decades!

I predict you'll have a wiry little baby

33 Responses to “Stupefyingly Oblivious”

  1. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The decision itself is judicial activism, in the real sense of the word, not the fundie “I don’t agree with this law” sense. So far everything I’ve read says that this judge is smoking crack.

    The Obama administration is publicly very confident in appealing the decision.

    Where it gets scary is that this decision is just a hop, skip, and a jump from one of the most conservative supreme courts in modern history deciding this whole issue.

    I’m torn on my paranoia over this.

    On the one hand, the justices could go all tea bagger, leading to a complete repeal of the health care law. It may be imperfect, but it is worlds better than what we had previously. Pre-existing conditions will be back with a vengence.

    On the other hand, the court has proven itself a good dear loving kind whore to corporate interests. The supreme court gives out better hand jobs to corporate interests than any other entity I know. That’s bad right? YES. But, it conflicts directly with the teabagger opposition to the health care bill: the mandatory insurance provision. This is actually the part of the law the judge used to strike down the entire law. And it is also the key provision that the insurance companies want kept, since it positively helps their bottom line.

    It’s really hard to say which way the supremes will go on this because since they don’t have an election to content with, they can either continue giving fantastic handjobs to corporations like the insurance industry, or they can go full teabagger out of some twisted interpretation of the constitution. It’s all up to the conservative five.

    If it’s overturned, it’s bad news for a lot of people. I can’t help but think that it won’t last. People will be getting pretty comfortable with the parts of the health insurance law they liked by the time it ceases to exist. A new bill would almost assuredly have less corporate protections if that part is ruled unconstitutional. Honestly, if I was an insurance company, I’d be pretty fucking worried about the future.

  2. Jeff Says:

    I’ve never understood how the liberalish justices can stand to serve on the same court with people like Roberts, Alito and Scalia. Or Thomas – all political arguments aside, he simply shouldn’t be there, period.

    Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens – for them to have spent all these years, going in day after day, facing these vile excuses for human beings – it just floors me. It bespeaks a level of maturity that I simply don’t possess. If I didn’t quit, I’d have been up at the White House every day, screaming at Bush, “Are you f*cking KIDDING me?!”

  3. Dale Says:

    The fundie irony is at its finest here. BOO HAA HAA!

  4. Imroy Says:

    No one wants the federal government or a pencil-pushing bureaucrat in Washington policing private medical decisions.

    But a company trying to maximise profits is okay!

  5. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Jeff – I don’t see how they do it either. Maturity is part of it, sure, but I think there’s also professional respect. I can’t respect Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas. Not at all. But politics is always an exclusive club where loyalty to the construct is greater than the loyalty to the philosophy. Every once in a while, an outsider makes his or her way in, but all in all, it’s just the modern version of nobles.

    The two sides of the court don’t agree on much, but they definitely agree that they got the awesomest job in the world (to them) and don’t want anybody upsetting that train for them or their colleagues. Fuck core values when there is a golf course tee time already booked!

    It’s truly strange, but that’s how it is. I can really respect liberals in positions of power I agree with and even understand why you don’t rock the boat often. But at the same time, I just don’t get the “decor” aspects that go along with it that they all seem to really enjoy, and the respect that they have for even their worst enemies on policy who are truly and utterly insane!

  6. Jeff Says:

    I think you’re right, although I’m not sure it applies to Stevens. Unlike the others, he was never to be found at cocktail parties. He didn’t socialize with the other justices or with anyone in Washington. I understand he used to go up to his home in New Hampshire every weekend, and that’s where he is now. He never had any use for the social aspects of the job.

  7. jen Says:

    Somehow “we don’t want the government mucking around in medical issues” loses a lot of credibility when the same politicians using that argument against health care reform turn around and legislate when health insurance can pay for a therapeutic abortion.

  8. Lindsay Says:

    That’s right Jen. The whole “forcible rape” wording proposed for medicare paid abortions has me in a dither. WTF…ALL rape is forcible. Considering how few rapists actually get charged and convicted, will they now force women to go on with an unwanted pregnancy until the rapist is jailed?

    I really just don’t get it. Does no one think here? What if it was your daughter, niece, wife, mother that was raped…would you think they would really say “too bad, so sad you have to carry this baby from a horrible act of violence.” Is this the way these people really feel about their beloved family members? Personally, I don’t need people who love me like that in my life.

  9. sue blue Says:

    So, basically, according to the “forcible rape” tripe now being proposed, you can only claim to have been “raped” if you are a three-year-old white Christian virgin who was innocently sleeping in your little bed, dressed in a full-length nightie that completely covered your vile, tempting female body from neck to toes, and your assailant broke in through a locked window or door, and you screamed and fought violently to prevent penetration. All y’all other sluts deserved it! Does that about cover it?
    So, finally, we get down to the real reason these “conservatives” are anti-choice – not “saving the lives of the innocent unborn”, but controlling the sex lives of the women they hate. Religiously-inspired misogyny is the I-beam that supports all the other warped planks of their political platform.

  10. Jeff Says:

    not “saving the lives of the innocent unborn”, but controlling the sex lives of the women they hate. Religiously-inspired misogyny is the I-beam that supports all the other warped planks of their political platform.

    That’s about the size of it.

  11. Parrotlover77 Says:

    WTF…ALL rape is forcible.

    Well, statutory rape might not fall in that bucket. In fact, I personally think that is what they were aiming for. But even giving them that benefit of the doubt, that still means that if a dude fucks his mentally handicapped 12 year old daughter without “force” (for example), abortion would not be a recourse for this individual who was deemed, by law, to require statutory protection because she is/was (legally) incapable of granting consent for a sexual act. It’s totally ass backwards! If we give special protection on one side of the law, why is it taken away on the other? Very confusing.

    What concerns me even more than distinguishing statutory and “forcible” is how that word could be skewed to possibly apply to a woman who did not fight back sufficiently for an activist conservative judge. A very legitimate rape survival strategy is sometimes to simply allow the act to progress without fighting in order to not sustain further injury and hope it ends sooner. Now… Is that considered not “forcible?”

    Truly frightening language.

  12. Ron Britton Says:

    I guess burglary is now legal, because it isn’t “forcible robbery”.

  13. Parrotlover77 Says:

    That’s pretty awesome. I’m going to have to remember that one…

  14. sue blue Says:

    Icing on the cake – here’s an absolutely repulsive serving of outrage from South Dakota. Right-Wing Amurka…now you’re really in the Twilight Zone.

  15. tamarion Says:

    dont get me started on the fundies. they need to keep their hands off the abortion thing…along with judging who we can love. taking away women’s choice of what to do with THEIR bodies because others believe they shouldnt have a choice, is insane.

  16. sue blue Says:

    Planned Parenthood now on the block…because saving the paltry few million in government funding for this “abortion mill” is soooo crucial to reducing the deficit when you don’t want to have to take a penny out of the pockets of the rich or the MegaMotherFucker Corporations. Yep, what’s a few social services when it comes to funneling some cold hard cash right into our Wall Street buddies’ pockets. And those dirty baby-killing lesbian liberals can get back in the kitchen and bedroom where they belong, squeezing out future slave-laborers and cannon-fodder. It’s win-win all around, fellow Repuglicans and bloated plutocrats!

  17. Jeff Says:

    They never take money away from the military. Never. They only ever take it away from liberals and poor people.

    I am thoroughly sick of this country.

  18. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I think its backfiring, though. Wisconsin has done made me proud. I had almost written off that state after the last election, but apparently it was just a sleeping giant waiting to be woken.

    I’m not sure when the critical mass will be reached on the abortion issue, but I feel we are close. Despite abortion’s legality, it’s damn near de facto illegal for tens of millions of women. I think it’s easy for social issues to get lost in the mix when there is so much economic strife, but there will be a point where political confrontation on that issue will occur. That much is all but certain. It might take the activist supremes upholding some ridiculous state level abortion law. It might take another doctor murder. Heck, axing planned parenthood funding might do it. We will see.

  19. Lindsay Says:

    I think the axing of PP’s funding has to be approved by the Senate, right? In that case I think we’re ok on this round…but it’s pretty obvious to me that the new guard Republican’s first agenda item is to negate the progress of the feminist movement.

    Also, haven’t lawmakers learned from Prohibition/War on Drugs/etcetera? Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean people aren’t going to do it anymore. Not to mention the fact that social programs like WIC are facing massive cuts as well…so theoretically, we’re going to have more mouths to feed with less help.

    I know a lot of women who are upset about PP’s funding being cut, and I’ve been making sure to sign every petition I can going around. When I can I’ll make charitable contributions as well. This organization is too important to women everywhere.

  20. Ron Britton Says:

    it’s pretty obvious to me that the new guard Republican’s first agenda item is to negate the progress of the feminist movement.

    It goes beyond that. They’re trying to negate all liberal progress of the last 100 years. This is the most radical agenda the Republicans have ever been on. They’re drunk with power.

    They managed to so thoroughly destroy the economy during the Bush plague that they’ve gotten most of the populace to finally notice that the ship is on fire and sinking, and they’re blaming the new captain for it.

    Now the unwashed masses are so panicky they’ll do anything the Republicans tell them.

  21. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Now the unwashed masses are so panicky they’ll do anything the Republicans tell them.

    I’m not so sure. The polls are pretty clearly favoring “liberal” policies (if one can call allowing employees to bargain for livable wages “liberal” — it seems like it should be non-partisan) by a large margin.

    It’s pretty important to remember that elections are not won as much on large portions of the population constantly switching their views (although there are some like that). Elections are won based on voter apathy. Which ever side has the most apathetic voters will lose. That’s pretty much the last 50 or so years of American politics in a nutshell.

    Sometimes it’s not even a fully conscious decision. It’s very easy to procrastinate when you are not very excited about an election. Then, before you know it, the polls closed and you comfort yourself by repeating, “one little vote wouldn’t have made a difference.”

    Anyway, I digress. The Republicans are going to try to destroy the last 100 years of liberal policies, that much is all but certain. Some of it will pass. Some of it won’t. The massive union-oriented protests are really helping put some in the “won’t” column. Even if Wisconsin loses, several other governors are backing away from previous hints of union busting. This is good.

    I wrote my state legislature and told them that Wisconsin has inspired me and I don’t want NC to be a “Right to Work” state. My local Democratic house representative was happy to hear that. (He’s pretty awesome. He actually replies to his own emails. I know!) My state Senator (a douchebag Republican) has not replied. Normally, when I write him, I get a form email reply within 24 hours. Not this time. Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe he figures it’s better to let sleeping dogs lay rather than argue with me. He’s argued with me over email before. It was fun calling him out.

  22. Jeff Says:

    They’re trying to take away my public television – one of the few things that’s made my life worth living these past few decades. Bastards.

    They’ll be at their clubs with their corporate cronies, having their gin and tonics, while I’m home watching CSI or some damn thing because Masterpiece Theater has been shitcanned.

    I have no words to express the loathing and contempt I feel for these people. I keep seeing Boehner’s lugubrious faces, looking as though he’s about to burst into tears, as he takes away as much as he can from poor people and liberals, whining all the while about his working class childhood…

    Is there a Republican on the face of this planet who isn’t a thoroughgoing, irredeemable piece of shit? I don’t think so.

  23. Lindsay Says:

    Jeff, I’m with you on PBS as well (and NPR to boot). The only radio and tv worth paying attention to is in danger. I think what the government spends on PBS doesn’t even begin to touch the spending of say, a more efficient way to kill people in the Defense Department.

    I will be PISSED if my Dr. Who reruns on Sunday nights go away.

  24. Jeff Says:

    Exterminate! Exterminate!

  25. Parrotlover77 Says:

    You still get classic Who?? My PBS stopped airing that in the 90s. As far as I can tell, the PBS where I live now has never aired it. I’m pretty much done with Fawlty Towers reruns, and with BBCA, all the good British stuff goes there instead of PBS, so I haven’t watched PBS in years. I think the last time was when Nova had something interesting on.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think PBS and NPR both need funding — more funding than now, even. Maybe more money would bring in more new content! But I’ve mostly lost interest in what PBS has to offer right now. And I fear most other people have too.

    What will save PBS is Sesame Street. Seriously. Ron mentioned the “think of the childreennnnn” political ploy in a new post recently. Threatening that Republicans want to kill Sesame Street is something that will win politically with left, center, and even quite a few on the right.

  26. Ron Britton Says:

    PL:

    The local PBS stations carry different stuff, depending on what gets them the most pledges. Out here, in the geek capital of the world, they run a lot of Dr. Who. Before KTEH got bought out by KQED, Sunday night was pretty much Who, Red Dwarf, anime, plus assorted random sitcoms. I’m not sure what they do now. I stopped watching when they dropped Red Green.

    What might save PBS isn’t the liberals but the conservatives. Killing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would hurt red states more than blue states.

    That probably won’t matter, though. The Republicans frequently hurt their own rank-and-file supporters (who keep voting for them anyway!). The only Republican voters who have any influence are the ones who vote with million-dollar campaign contributions.

  27. Jeff Says:

    What might save PBS isn’t the liberals but the conservatives. Killing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would hurt red states more than blue states.

    Yes, but you know they don’t care ’bout no fancy book lernin’.

  28. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Yea you both called it. It may hurt them more (interesting, I didn’t know that), but low to middle class self-interest is nonexistent to conservatives. What’s important is only what makes life easier and more enjoyable to our wealthy galtian overlords.

    I still think PBS can be saved by savvy campaign featuring Big Bird and Cookie Monster.

    As for that Sunday Night line-up, that was Saturday Night for me growing up on my local PBS. But they don’t do that anymore. I live in a big geek area (Silicon Valley of the East) but I guess since it’s all young professionals who are out of college now and starting families, classic Who isn’t important to them.

    I wish BBC would just put classic Who on the intertubes. The DVDs are too expensive and I have no interest in owning. Plus, they are incomplete. But putting all the episodes on the web would be trivial in comparison. Put it behind a paywall (say, $0.50 per half-hour episode) and I bet it would rake in the cash…

    I almost forgot about Red Green. That show was awesome.

  29. Lindsay Says:

    Isn’t Sesame Street too liberal though, with all those minority children and liberal values?

    No classic DW…right now airing David Tennant episodes. But I kind of have a thing for David Tennant as who, so that might explain part of my desire to watch :-p

    I’ll have to ask my husband what the program he uses is to watch the videos on the UK BBC website (they have a lot of content that is not available on their international sites)…I want to say it’s called Expat Shield. I believe there are certain tv shows you can watch full episodes, but not clear on the classic stuff.

    In Chicago we have a Chicagoland PBS, Northern Indiana PBS and an Illinois PBS station available…and it’s all fairly different content-wise. Sunday nights are almost exclusively Britcoms, but scattered throughout the week are random series (Hustle, Doc Martin, and some CSI type show in which the name escapes me at the moment). And shitloads of Danny O’Donnell fundraising shows (he’s kind of an Irish Neil Diamond).

  30. RunawayLawyer Says:

    We’ve been enjoying Need to Know on PBS – if you haven’t seen it, it’s worth looking into.

    And as far as this post subject – it makes me want to bang my head against something hard. Why conservatives vote consistently against their and their family’s own self-interests is beyond me.

  31. Jeff Says:

    Why conservatives vote consistently against their and their family’s own self-interests is beyond me.

    Why do lemmings rush headlong, en masse, over a cliff?

  32. Ron Britton Says:

    Why do lemmings rush headlong, en masse, over a cliff?

    They don’t. In other words, little rodents with 1cc brains have more sense than rank-and-file Republican voters.

  33. Jeff Says:

    Good lord. We were lied to again.

    I’ll have to find another metaphor. “Sheep” is getting old. How about turkeys? http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/turkey.asp