I received a packet from the National Right To Life Committee asking for my views on various aspects of the abortion and health care debates. The phrasing of the questionnaire is interesting, to say the least, but I will answer all of their questions as best I can. Their questions will be in block quotes, with my answers following. Note that I will use “pro-life” to describe groups opposed to abortion and “pro-choice” to describe groups supporting reproductive rights, because those are the terms they call themselves.
Note: Due to the length of the questionnaire I have split this into two posts. For the TL;DR version of today’s portion, please scroll to the bottom.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) believes that unborn children should be protected by law, and that abortion should be permitted only when necessary to prevent the death of the mother. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that abortion should be legal?
(a) Only to prevent the death of the mother (the NRLC position),
(b) To prevent the death of the mother, or in cases of rape reported to a law enforcement agency, or incest against a minor reported to a child abuse agency.
(c) Other (please explain):
(c) It’s complex. In a perfect world, I could see coming close to supporting (b), but we are nowhere near a perfect world. I would prefer that abortion not be used for contraception, but I also don’t believe that we should necessarily force rape victims to report crimes to a law enforcement agency. Obviously, society would be better off if all sexual assaults were reported, but that’s not always realistic.
In my case, I had a friend who became pregnant as a result of a date rape. She feared repercussions, correctly, in my opinion, if she reported it (Fortunately, attitudes have dramatically improved since the 1990s). I helped her obtain an abortion, and I believe it was the correct decision. Because she did not want to get law enforcement involved, the only way she would be able to obtain an abortion is if abortion was legal. I do believe that abortion should be restricted, but not to the extent of (a) or (b). My answers to the questions that follow should clarify that position.
PLEASE NOTE: In every question below, a “yes” response indicates agreement with the position of NRLC.
ROE v. WADE and CASEY v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD
In its 1973 rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court created a “right to abortion” for any reason until “viability” (into the sixth month), and for any “health” reasons–including “emotional” health–even during the final three months of pregnancy. This ruling invalidated the abortion laws that were in effect in all 50 states at that time. In the 1992 ruling of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “core holdings” of Roe v. Wade, and said that any law placing and “undue burden” on access to abortion would be struck down.
(1) Do you advocate changing the Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Casey v. Planned Parenthood decisions, so that elected legislative bodies (the state legislatures and Congress) may once again protect unborn children by limiting and/or prohibiting abortion?
For this and every question following, the NRLC wants a simple YES or NO. I will comply, but explain my answers.
First, I think the definition of “viability” has changed significantly since 1973. The Supreme Court considered that to be 28 weeks. The current record for survival is 21 weeks, 5 days. At 25 weeks there is a 50-80% chance of survival. I would argue that viability has moved from during the sixth month to the beginning of the fifth month.
Second, the term “unborn children” is leading, in my opinion. The idea of life beginning at conception is a fairly recent development legally, really only arising in the mid-1800s. The legal standard was either formation of the fetus or the “quickening,” when the mother first feels the fetus move. There are many, many places to draw the line, with one extreme wanting to prohibit contraception and the other extreme, like Hillary Clinton, wanting abortion legal for the entire pregnancy.
I think the quickening milestone was a reasonable one, as it corresponds with the point at which higher brain function begins at between 22 and 24 weeks. As such, I could support strong restrictions on abortion, with exceptions only for the health of the mother and in cases of severely deformed fetuses, after the 20th to 24th week.
UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
In 2004, Congress enacted the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Public Law 108-212), which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim if he or she is injured during the commission of any of 68 federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
(2) Would you vote against any attempt to repeal or weaken the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), and will you support additional legislation consistent with the underlying principle that unborn humans should be recognized and protected as members of the human family?
You had me, then you lost me. I would vote against any attempt to repeal or weaken the UVVA. The second part of that question is far too open-ended for me to support. There may be very good legislation to protect pregnant mothers, but it’s also possible to draft legislation ostensibly to protect “unborn humans” that goes too far.
(3) Would you vote against any legislation that would weaken any pro-life law or policy that is in effect on the day you are elected?
I would expect this Oklahoma bill to be enacted. I would vote for legislation that would counteract the ability of a state to revoke a medical license of a doctor who performed an abortion.
(4) Would you vote against any federal legislation that would place new limits on the ability of states to regulate abortion–for example, the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” (S. 217, H.R. 448 in the 114th Congress), sometimes referred to by critics as the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act,” which is successor to the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act”?
I might vote against it. I might not. “Any” is very broad. Calling the “Women’s Health Protection Act” the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act” is almost comical, since the act quite clearly has limits, most notably that it allows states to place restrictions on most abortions after the point of fetal viability.
PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT
There is now compelling scientific evidence that at least by 20 weeks the unborn child is capable of experiencing pain when subjected to abortion. On this basis, in 2010, Nebraska enacted the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to prohibit abortions after that point (with narrow exceptions), and a number of other states subsequently passed bills based on the same model. On May 13, 2015, similar national legislation (H.R. 36) was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, but was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate on September 22, 2015. (A companion bill also was introduced in the U.S. Senate, S. 1553.)
(5) Would you vote for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, to strictly limit abortion from the point in development that evidence suggests an unborn child has the capacity to feel pain?
The twenty-week mark isn’t unreasonable to me. I would prefer an amendment to the text of the Nebraska legislation to allow for a later abortion in the case of a severely deformed fetus, but this isn’t necessarily a show-stopper. I would prefer that the word “evidence” was preceded by “conclusive scientific” as well.
DISMEMBERMENT ABORTION BAN ACT
The Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 3515) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.). This bill is based on a model state bill proposed by National Right to Life, which was enacted during 2015 in Kansas and Oklahoma. The bill defines “dismemberment abortion” as “knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off…” This definition largely overlaps with what those in the abortion trade currently refer to as “dilation and evacuation” or “dilation and extraction” (D&E) abortions. This brutal method is commonly used starting at about 14 weeks of pregnancy and extending into the third trimester.
(6) Would you vote for the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act, to place a national ban on the use of dismemberment abortion?
D&E is generally used after sixteen weeks. I am fine with firm restrictions on abortion starting after about twenty weeks, but since D&E is the recommended method after sixteen, I cannot support this. From what I have read, in most cases of D&E the fetus is anesthetized. The graphic description in the bill is fear mongering, which I oppose in any form on any issue.
GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR ABORTION
On January 22, 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7). This bill would establish a permanent policy against funding abortions and health plans that cover abortions, consistent with the principles of the Hyde Amendment, to all federal programs, including those created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-148) (“ObamaCare”).
(7) Would you vote for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act?
I believe the Hyde Amendment is too restrictive, for one, but I also believe that health plan providers should have some freedoms to cover and not cover some procedures. Much of the debate about this bill was over a perceived attempt to change the legal definition of rape. (Congressman Fleischmann was a co-sponsor of this legislation.)
Congress votes from time to time on the “Hyde Amendment,” a law that prohibits federal Medicaid money from being used to pay for abortions or for health plans that include abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. Other similar provisions of law restrict federal subsidies for abortion in certain other federal health programs, including those covering the military and federal employees (but, regrettably, not major components of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“ObamaCare”).
(8) Would you oppose any legislation that would weaken the Hyde Amendment or other current laws that restrict federal subsidies for abortion, and would you support measures to ensure the fullest possible enforcement of such laws and application wherever appropriate of their underlying principles?
Again with the “any.”
The District of Columbia is an exclusively federal jurisdiction. Article I of the Constitution provides that Congress must exercise “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District. In December 2009, at the urging of President Obama, Congress effectively repealed a longstanding ban on government funding of abortions in the District. However, in April 2011, at the insistence of congressional Republican leaders, a prohibition was restored to prohibit any use of government funds for abortion in the District, whether designated as “federal” funds or so-called “local” funds (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). This issue will continue to arise during future congressional appropriations cycles.
(9) Would you vote to preserve the prohibition on public funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, applicable to all government funds however they are labeled?
I am in favor of statehood for Washington, DC, or, alternatively, of returning most of the District to Maryland. The people of the District deserve to rule themselves, and every poll I can find suggests that the people of the District are overwhelmingly pro-choice.
The federal government annually provides many millions of dollars to organizations that operate abortion clinics. For example, affiliates of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) provide over one-third of all the abortions performed in the U.S., yet PPFA also receives over a half-billion dollars annually from government sources, mostly federal (including Medicaid and the Title X “family planning” program).
(10) Would you vote for legislation that would make organizations that perform abortions (other than bona fide hospitals), including Planned Parenthood, ineligible to receive federal funding, including federal Medicaid funds?
The recurring passive-aggressive quotes are amusing. If you want to limit abortions, then cutting funding for family planning programs is going in the exact wrong direction. This is a case, in my opinion, where many of the anti-contraception views influence the pro-life positions of NRLC.
FOREIGN AID FOR ABORTION
The U.S. spends about $600 million annually for birth control programs overseas. Under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, executive orders collectively referred to as the “Mexico City Policy” established that in order to be eligible for U.S. population control funds, a private overseas organization must agree not to perform abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest) or to “actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.” However, in January 2009, President Obama overturned this pro-life policy by executive order. In congressional testimony on April 22, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the Administration’s international policy is to “protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care,” and that “reproductive health includes access to abortion.”
(11) Would you vote for legislation to codify (enact into permanent law) the principles of the “Mexico City Policy,” that U.S. funds should not go to overseas organizations that perform or promote abortion?
Current events drive my thinking on this one. The Zika virus is causing an epidemic of microcephaly in affected countries. I think it is reasonable for women to have abortion as an option if they wish to avoid having a severely developmentally disabled child. If, however, we were to also provide corresponding funding to help affected countries and parents provide adequate lifetime care for people with debilitating birth defects, I could see supporting this.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) participates in China’s population control program, which relies heavily on coerced abortion. The UNFPA also promotes expanded access to abortion in developing nations, and has promoted the abortion pill, RU 486. The administrations of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush cut off U.S. funding to the UNFPA because of its role in China, but the Obama Administration restored U.S. funding to the UNFPA.
(12) Would you vote for legislation to prevent U.S. funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and to prevent any other disregard for, or weakening or repeal of, the 1985 Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion law, which prohibits U.S. funding of any agency that supports a program of coercive abortion?
This is where being a single-issue organization hurts NRLC. The UNFPA is essentially an international mirror of Planned Parenthood. I agree that coercive abortions are reprehensible, and we should not fund such programs. However, in this case, I think we would be better off negotiating with China and the UNFPA on the issue instead of cutting funding completely. I think the best approach here might be to cut UNFPA funds in an amount equal to what the organization spends on abortions in China.
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION/CONSENT FOR MINORS’ ABORTIONS
Laws are already in effect in about half the states that require notification or consent of at least one parent (or authorization by a judge) before an abortion can be performed on a minor. However, these laws are often circumvented by minors who cross state lines in order to evade parental notification requirements (often with the aid of older boyfriends, abortion clinic staff, or other adults lacking parental authority).
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), (S. 404, H.R. 803 in the 114th Congress) would require any abortionist, encountering a minor client from another state, to notify one parent before performing an abortion, unless presented with authorization from a court, or in cases of life endangerment, or in cases of sexual or physical abuse or neglect by a parent, in which case the appropriate state agency must be notified instead of a parent. The bill would also make it an offense to transport a minor across state lines to evade a parental involvement requirement.
(13) Would you oppose weakening amendments to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), and vote for the bill?
We have a massive problem in this country called abstinence education. If lawmakers want to keep information about sex from students, then I am perfectly fine keeping information about teenagers wanting abortions from the parents who elect these people.
Teen pregnancies are highest in states with abstinence education. Abstinence education isn’t education at all. It’s teaching a certain flavor of morality to kids, while excluding teaching them information that they actually need…like how not to get pregnant. Most of the states with abstinence education laws are also the states with parental notification laws. Pregnant girls are traveling from states that actively keep information from them to states that provide the information and services they need. Unfortunately, they end up seeking this information when it is too late to prevent pregnancies. Get rid of abstinence education laws and start actually teaching kids and we will not only see a drop in teenage pregnancies and abortions, but I will be more open to discussions on parental notification.
For many years, pro-abortion officials and advocacy groups have sought to use the compulsory powers of government to compel health care providers to participate in abortion. The Obama Administration has broadened the assault on conscience rights by issuing “ObamaCare” regulations that require employers (including religious schools and hospitals) to provide health coverage that will provide drugs and procedures to which the employers have religious or moral objections. In response, pro-life members of Congress have proposed the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (S. 1919 and H.R. 940 in the 114th Congress), which would greatly strengthen the rights of private individuals and employers to refuse to participate in abortion or other procedures that violate their deeply held beliefs. Among other things, the bill would prohibit any government agency–federal, state, or local–from penalizing health care providers for refusing to participate in providing abortions, and which would allow health care providers to sue when subjected to such attacks from government entities.
(14) Would you vote for legislation, such as the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, to protect the conscience rights of pro-life health care providers and others, and advocate for vigorous enforcement of existing laws to protect conscience rights?
The “and others” seems to me to be covered by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. ruling, which gets my “NO” answer. As far as the rest of it, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell will likely cover that. Additional legislation seems redundant at this time.
Some federal and state courts have construed laws that ban discrimination “on account of sex” or “on the basis of sex” as inconsistent with limitations on abortion or government funding of abortion. In addition, some U.N. agencies and other international bodies have adopted the position that limits on abortion are a form of gender-based discrimination.
(15) Would you oppose any legislation or regulatory actions that are based on claims that laws protecting unborn children are a form of gender-based discrimination, and would you insist on the addition of “abortion-neutral” language to any proposed federal statutes, regulations, or constitutional amendments that would mandate “gender equality” or that restrict distinctions on the basis of sex, to ensure that such laws or executive actions cannot be misused to advance pro-abortion policies?
“Any” strikes again.
PROTECTION OF HUMAN EMBRYOS
The right to life of human beings must be respected at every stage of their biological development. Human individuals who are at the embryonic stage of development should not be used for harmful or lethal medical experimentation. This applies equally to human beings whether their lives were begun by in vitro fertilization, by somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning), or by any other laboratory techniques.
NRLC opposes harvesting “stem cells” from living human embryos, since this kills the embryos. This includes any human embryos who might be created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning) or other laboratory manipulations. Note: NRLC is NOT opposed to other research on “stem cells” that are obtained without killing embryos–for example, stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood and from adult tissue.
In 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order to prevent the federal government from funding research that would encourage the destruction of human embryos, and vetoed bills that would have overturned that policy–but in 2009, President Obama issued a new executive order that nullified the previous pro-life policy, which has allowed federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos.
(16) Would you vote for legislation to prevent federal support of research or treatments that harm or destroy human embryos, or that use cells or tissues that are obtained by harming or killing human embryos (including any human embryos created by human cloning or other laboratory manipulations)?
I don’t believe embryos are people. Embryos do not have brains or higher brain activity, and a large percentage of embryos naturally will not be born, either through a failure to implant or through miscarriage. As such, I do not believe embryos deserve legal protection, other than as the personal property of their parents.
HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING LEGISLATION
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010” (“ObamaCare”) (Pub. L. No. 111-148), which passed Congress over the objections of NRLC. When the government rations health care in a way that makes it illegal or impossible for Americans to choose life-saving medical treatment, food, and fluids, it imposes a type of involuntary euthanasia.
Through objectionable features separately described in questions 17-20 below, this legislation is resulting in unacceptable denial of life-saving medical treatment through rationing. It also provides subsidies for private health plans that cover elective abortion, and contains provisions that are likely to result in further expansions of abortion through administrative actions by various federal agencies.
(17) Would you actively support repeal and replacement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010” (“ObamaCare”)?
Six years in and I can’t find any solid evidence of the government rationing health care. (If I am wrong, please show me.) ObamaCare provides subsidies for all health plans. If health plan providers decide that it makes sense for them to cover abortions, then the free market will decide that. The last phrase (“and contains provisions that are likely to result in further expansions of abortion through administrative actions by various federal agencies”) is a clear slippery slope fallacy. Provide better family planning care and you get fewer abortions.
There are things I don’t like about ObamaCare, but I believe the law should be amended, not repealed and replaced.
Regardless of your answer to question 17, please answer the following additional questions about the PPACA as well.
ABORTION IN HEALTH INSURANCE
The PPACA (“ObamaCare”) established a new program to assist tens of millions of Americans to purchase private health insurance, including plans that cover elective abortions. The law also created a program under which a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), will administer private plans that will be offered across the nation, but failed to prohibit the agency from including in the program health plans that cover elective abortion.
(18) Would you support legislation to revise the law to permanently prohibit federal premium subsidies from being spent on plans that cover elective abortions, prohibit federal agencies from administering plans that cover elective abortions, and prohibit federal mandates requiring private health plans to cover or provide access to abortions?
The last part of that question I could support, as I don’t believe private plans should be required to cover abortions, but if the market has a demand for plans with abortion coverage, PPACA plans should be able to include it.
(19) Would you oppose any new health care legislation intended to comprehensively revise or replace the PPACA unless it contains explicit language, covering all provisions of the legislation, prohibiting federal subsidies for elective abortion and for insurance plans that cover abortion, and preventing federal pro-abortion regulatory mandates, on a permanent basis?
RATIONING IN HEALTH CARE
ObamaCare has made Americans increasingly concerned about denial of life-saving medical treatment for themselves or their family members resulting from its implementation.
(20) As a general principle, do you agree with this statement?: “Federal law ought not to limit what private citizens can choose, out of their own funds, to spend on medical treatment to save the lives of their own family.” See generally www.nrlc.org/medethics/healthcarerationing/
Obviously. I strongly disagree with the premise. Americans are not “increasingly” concerned about rationing. In fact, I’m pretty sure that most Americans aren’t concerned about rationing at all. This is fear mongering.
EXCESS BENEFITS TAX: The law (“ObamaCare”) imposes a 40% excise tax (named the Excess Benefits Tax) on premiums for employer-paid health insurance exceeding an ObamaCare-set limit (26USC§4980l). As explained in a September 30, 2013 Politico article, the level at which the tax kicks in will be linked to the increase in the consumer price index, but medical inflation generally rises faster than that. Think of the…tax as the slow-moving car in the right land, chugging along at 45 miles per hour. It may be pretty far in the distance, but if you’re…moving along at a reasonable clip in the same lane–say, 60 miles an hour–and you don’t slow down, you’re going to run smack into it.” When, in the not-too-distant future, the “collision point” is reached, health insurance benefits for employees will effectively be prevented from keeping up with medical inflation, forcing compounding cutbacks in the health care they are permitted to receive.
DOCUMENTATION for this and the subsequent 3 questions: http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/communications/healthcarereport2014.pdf
(21) Would you vote for legislation to eliminate ObamaCare’s Excess Benefits Tax?
Maybe. This is an attempt to control the rate of medical inflation. It hasn’t kicked in yet, so determining the effects of the Excess Benefits Tax is impossible. I don’t know if it will work or not, but I think we should let it ride for a few years to see the effects.
IPAB: The law (“ObamaCare”) establishes an “Independent Payment Advisory Board” (IPAB) which is directed to make recommendations to prevent private health care spending from keeping up with the rate of medical inflation. If the Board fails to complete this task, the law directs the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to do so in its stead. In either case, HHS is empowered to implement these recommendations through the imposition of “quality and efficiency” measures on health care providers. For example, no insurance plan offered through any of the state or federal insurance exchanges may contract with a health care provider who fails to abide by the federally imposed “quality and efficiency” measures.
Because the objective is to limit not just health care paid for by government funded programs, but also that paid for by private citizens and their private health insurance, treatment through a doctor and patient deem needed or advisable to save the patient’s life or health but which runs afoul of the imposed standards would be denied, even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it.
(22) Would you vote for legislation to eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and the authority of HHS to use “quality and efficiency measures” to limit treatment paid for with non-government funds?
Actually yes and no. I had this argument a while ago on Facebook. The main focus of the IPAB is to bring the administration costs of insurers under control. Administrative costs in the U.S. are approximately 25%, which is about twice as high as Canadian and European costs. I would be in favor of legislation to limit the authority of HHS to limit treatment paid for with non-government funds.
While cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from federal payments in Medicare, the law empowers HHS to limit senior citizens in spending their own money to make up the difference. Under the law as it existed before, older Americans were permitted to add their own money, if they chose, on top of the governmental payment, in order to get insurance plans less likely to ration care (known as Medicare Advantage private-fee-for-service plans). The new law gives HHS the standardless discretion to reject any such plan and thus to limit or even eliminate senior citizens’ legal ability to add their own money to obtain health insurance less likely to ration their health care.
(23) Would you vote for legislation that would restore the previous law so that HHS could not limit the right of senior citizens to choose to add their own money on top of the government Medicare payment to obtain private-fee-for-service plans less likely to ration health care?
Taking a quick look, I don’t see any shortage of Medicare Advantage plans available. If HHS determines that a company is failing to keep administrative costs under control or is making excessive profits, it should be able to reject that company’s plans. I am not doing a huge amount of research on this right now, but if anyone knows of the HHS abusing this authority, I would love to hear about it.
Health insurers will be excluded from the new state-based insurance exchanges whenever government officials think plans offered by the insurers inside or outside the exchange allow private citizens to choose to spend whatever the government officials, in their standardless discretion, think is an “excessive or unjustified” amount on their own health insurance.
(24) Would you vote for legislation that would remove the authority of state-based insurance exchange officials to exclude health insurers from competing within the exchange on the basis of how much the insurers permit private citizens to choose to spend on health insurance?
I am answering “no” here mostly because I don’t know enough about the issue. My gut feeling, however, is that private citizens who want “Cadillac” health insurance should not have any trouble acquiring such coverage outside the exchanges. As such, keeping these plans off the exchanges should not be an undue burden on the public.
A brief summary of what I said above:
- I would allow abortion on demand until the twentieth week of pregnancy.
- After the twentieth week, I would allow abortion to save the life of the mother or to abort a severely deformed fetus.
- I am opposed to abstinence-only education.
- I believe ObamaCare should be amended, not repealed, as it does far more good than harm.
- I think the NRLC is a black-and-white organization. I think most real world issues are shades of gray; only rarely is something black or white.
- I think the NRLC is relying on scare tactics to gain support among the elderly.
Hopefully I will get to the rest of the questionnaire (Questions 25-36) tomorrow.