Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Sunday, August 9, 2009


The St. Petersburg Times runs a blog called which keeps track of, among other things, the rumors swirling around President Obama's health care reform bill. I've set up a widget on my blog so that we can track some of the more egregious falsehoods flying around the blogsphere concerning the bill. The widget to the right of this post gives you a snapshot of the allegation or rumor that is being spread via emails, rightwing blogs, and people in Congress and then the real story. I suggest you go to the site and surf its many informative and useful links.

The title of this post comes from one of's recent posting on a lie being repeated by John Boehner and Liberty Counsel:

"...a claim by Rep. John Boehner that the plan would require Americans to 'subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.' While there are several versions of the health care plan floating around Congress, and it seems that full abortion coverage would be permitted in the government-sponsored program, we didn't see anything in them that would put taxpayers on the hook for subsidizing abortions. In fact, we found an amendment in a key version of the House plan that specifically seeks to ensure that federal funds are not used to subsidize abortion coverage. And so we ruled that claim False.

We also checked an abortion claim by the Liberty Counsel, a group that describes its mission as an 'education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family' and is affiliated with Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Virigina." In a memo on its Web site, the group says that page 992 of the health care bill will 'establish school-based 'health' clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!' There's nothing in the bill to that effect, so we gave them a Pants on Fire."

More lies:

The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the "socialized" system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000.
Club for Growth, Tuesday, August 4th, 2009.
Ruling: False

President Barack Obama suggested on national TV that the Democratic health care bill "will have government decide" that a healthy, 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker "should take a pain pill" instead.
Dan Lungren, Tuesday, July 28th, 2009.
Ruling: False


Anonymous said...

If you can't beat someone on the merits of his or her argument, try lying.

Like those folks spreading falsehoods about Obama's health care bill.

Dumb is as dumb does.

TRUTH 101 said...

It is far easier to make up your own facts than look up the real ones. Plus, they can fit them to whatever it is they want them to fit.

dmarks said...

" and it seems that full abortion coverage would be permitted in the government-sponsored program, we didn't see anything in them that would put taxpayers on the hook for subsidizing abortions."

Some clarification. If the "government sponsored program" is indeed the "public option" (taxpayer funded), and it has "full abortion coverage", then who is "subsidizing" the abortions that are part of it?

Arthurstone said...

I would certainly hope abortion would be covered under whatever final 'plan' emerges I agree with dmarks this 'clarification' could be more clear.

Still the greater problem is the rightwing 'pro-lifers' endless assertion that any discussion of abortion, any govt funding of abortion and continued availability of a safe, beneficial medical procedure is actually compulsory abortion.

Not at all true. Any woman can choose to give birth then promptly farm out the raising of said child to follow her calling.

dmarks said...

"What if someone gave an abortion debate and no-one came?"

Well, we certainly do not agree on abortion policy. But we do agree that the clarification is not clear.