“In a highly awkward moment, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D.-Ill.) said that she was “unaware” that the preventive services regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has issued under the Obamacare law offers free sterilizations to teenage girls” — Read full article at Catholic Online.
Well, Rep Schankowsky, I can see you’re shocked. Apparently, you did not study the Affordable Care Act closely enough. Perhaps this simple chart will make it easier for you:
I’d like to say this is not a joke, but… Yes, this is an actual flowchart for ObamaCare. Don’t believe me? Check here.
I’m no civil engineer, so maybe my opinion here does not count for much. I’m just saying that based on this chart — charts are supposed to illustrate things clearly — I would be surprised if anyone fully understands ObamaCare.
But let’s not be cynical. Perhaps, if we give the man another 4 years in office, in the end, everything will be made perfectly clear. But do your really want to wait that long to find out all the unseen implications?
Unseen implications. Consider a teenage girl who is considering sterilization (of course, at that age, she will need her parents’ counsel and consent). When she comes of legal age, will she think of her body differently? If she does, supposing that the operation is reversible, what course of action would she take to reverse the procedure? I’m not sure Planned Parenthood performs those types of operations. But supposing that they do, with their current track record, would you count on PP to manage the procedure?
Would ObamaCare cover it?
Apparently, we do not have a clear answer to that question. Not even the Congress that passed ObamaCare knows exactly what it does and does not cover. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, openly admits it.
Congress failed to think this law through on multiple levels. For instance, before passing the law, did they even consider the constitutionality of the law? Listen to what Congresswoman Kathy Hochul of New York has to say with regard to the HHS Mandate, sanctioned under ObamaCare:
If they were not looking to the Constitution, then by what standard did they think the Supreme Court would uphold it or strike it down if it were legally challenged? Catherine Sebelius, the law’s architect, has this to say:
The Administration’s talking points seem to be, “Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constitution!”
Congress seemingly did not think these matters through very well before they passed the law. That’s a benign interpretation.
For more years anyone?