Calling Gov. Pro-Life's bluff

Good on an intrepid bunch of Nebraska senators, who plan to call the "pro-life" bluff of Nebraska's baby-killer¹ governor.

They plan to give new life to a measure restoring prenantal care to poor women -- care scuttled by the arcana of federal Medicaid regulations and the restoration of which was torpedoed by Gov. Dave Heineman.

And here's what's interesting: They're going to attach the measure to the pro-life "priority bill" this legislative session -- meaning if Heineman is well and truly intent on denying medical care to poor women in the name of punishing illegal immigrants, he'll have to ruin his political career to do it.

I DON'T KNOW what was more gratifying, reading this in the Omaha World-Herald or picturing, in my minds eye, Heineman slowly twisting in the political winds:

If successful, the focus of the debate could shift from one hot-button issue to another from illegal immigration to abortion.

State Sens. Brad Ashford, Heath Mello and Jeremy Nordquist, all of Omaha, talked about their strategy to revive prenatal funding after meeting Monday with officials at OneWorld Community Health Center in south Omaha.

The lawmakers requested the gathering to learn more directly how low-income women are dealing with the state's decision to end Medicaid funding for prenatal services for poor women, many of them undocumented.

Dr. Kristine McVea, chief medical officer of OneWorld clinics, reiterated to the senators that six expectant women have told her staff in the past few weeks that they would seek to abort their babies rather than enter the clinic's prenatal program. That compares to about four abortions McVea said she knew of in the past decade.

A doctor in Schuyler, Neb., also said last week that one patient had turned to abortion and that another was considering one.

“That is why this has now taken on a new light,” Mello said. “The unfortunate proof has been brought to life.”

IN THE WAKE of this unmitigated and mean-spirited fiasco, the termination of Dave Heineman's political career is one abortion I could wholeheartedly support.

¹ If a GOP representative can call a pro-life Democratic congressman, Bart Stupak, "baby killer" over his health-care vote, what else can you say about a Republican governor whose sabotage of prenatal care for the poor prompts some to opt for abortions? Which, by the way, are much cheaper than decent prenatal care in this state.

Kill a baby for the Red, White and Blue!

Bienvenidos a América, where poor lives are cheap, poor Mexican lives are cheaper . . . and abortion is cheaper still.

That's certainly the case in Nebraska, where if you're Gov. Dave Heineman or one of the Legislature's immigration hawks, the cold political reality is that it pays to be "pro-life, but. . . ."

And while Gov. Snow White and the Way More Than Seven Dwarfs stand in the "anti" room of the legislative chamber and congratulate themselves on all the things they're against -- government spending, illegal immigration, abortion -- comes the news from all over Nebraska.

NEWS TODAY from the Omaha World-Herald:

A Schuyler, Neb., doctor voiced frustration Wednesday as he described the fallout he has already seen from the loss of government-funded prenatal care for some low-income women.

One pregnant woman opted for an abortion three weeks ago because she felt she couldn't afford to pay for prenatal care, said Dr. John Jackson of Memorial Hospital in Schuyler.

A second patient is seriously considering terminating her pregnancy, although he is trying to talk her out of it, Jackson said.

Several pregnant women among his mostly Hispanic patients in the meatpacking town have quit coming for prenatal visits because of the out-of-pocket costs, he said, and one asked if he would come to her house to deliver her baby.

Jackson said the women are doing the math: With incomes of as little as $150 every two weeks, it's hard to pay for $50 diabetes tests or the $750 to $1,000 cost of prenatal care. By comparison, an abortion at a Lincoln clinic costs $500 to $550.

“If you actually want to solve the immigration problem, solve that,” the family physician said.

“Why am I putting a baby's life at risk? That's not right.”

Jackson spoke Wednesday, shortly after a bill was killed in the Nebraska Legislature that would have restored government-funded, prenatal care for low-income pregnant women, including many who are illegal immigrants.

Fremont Sen. Charlie Janssen, who opposed the measure, said that while the abortion was sad, it was most likely unrelated to the end of prenatal care coverage.

“The illegal immigrants we're talking about, I believe, are still going to get their prenatal care from a different source than the Nebraska taxpayers, who are already strapped,” Janssen said.

Gov. Dave Heineman had opposed the bill, saying taxpayer-funded benefits should not be afforded to women who are living in the United States illegally.

Heineman on Tuesday rejected a proposed compromise that would have extended the prenatal aid only to those women who were already pregnant.

His decision led Lincoln Sen. Kathy Campbell, the sponsor of Legislative Bill 1110, to pull the measure from Wednesday's agenda, killing it. Not enough senators supported the bill to overcome an expected veto from the governor, she said.

Heineman declined to comment on the reported abortion.

NEWS FROM The Associated Press:

Some opponents said it came down to the proposal's nearly $7 million estimated price tag.

"More so than the illegal immigrant issue, it was the fiscal impact," said Sen. Greg Adams of York, who originally supported Campbell's bill but was undecided when the bill was pulled.

With the funding now gone, there are signs that the emotional and financial strains on women and families could lead to more abortions, said Dr. Kristine McVea, a pediatrician and medical director of OneWorld Community Health centers, which caters to low-income families at 26 facilities statewide, including many Hispanics.

"This population is very family oriented and really loves children, so I can count on one hand the women I've come in contact with over the last five years that have chosen to have an abortion," McVea said in an interview. "Since all this came about, two women have said they're going to get abortions. We haven't been able to talk them out of it."

SO THE NEXT TIME you see a Republican law-and-order fiscal hawk who goes on and on and on about how "pro-life" he is, ask yourself a couple of questions.

Like, "Is this guy pro-life, or just anti-abortion . . . but only when it doesn't get in the way of not spending taxpayer dollars or accidentally helping an illegal alien or three?" And like, "Am I REALLY casting a vote to make society more 'pro-life,' or am I just voting for some phony who just might do more for the Nebraska abortion industry than a roomful of Leroy Carharts?"

Dear pro-life movement: You've just been "pwned."

Pro-death sins of omission

There's a difference between anti-abortion and pro-life. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman is the former, not the latter.

And as such, he does not deserve the support of any Nebraskan who calls himself -- or herself -- the latter. In a story today, the Omaha World-Herald succinctly outlines the difference between anti-abortion and pro-life:

Gov. Dave Heineman has rejected a proposed compromise to the controversial resumption of government-paid prenatal care for low income women, including hundreds here illegally.

That was the word Tuesday afternoon from State Sen. Kathy Campbell, who had attempted to seek a middle ground to the political storm that had pitted pro-life and medical organizations against anti-immigration groups and Gov. Heineman.

"I'm disheartened," said Campbell, of Lincoln.

The future of her proposal, Legislative Bill 1110, is unclear.

As originally drafted, it would have restored government-funded prenatal care in response to a federal directive that, as of March 1, ended such services for about 1,500 pregnant women, including about 800 illegal immigrants.

On Monday, Campbell had floated a compromise that would allow women that are currently pregnant, or those who signed up for services by April 17, to continue to receive prenatal services until their deliveries.

It was viewed as a fairer end to the services.

NO ONE even in the neighborhood of "mainstream" condones illegal immigration -- except, of course, for unethical, criminal "businessmen" who exploit undocumented workers for financial gain.

That said, however, because one stands in favor of the law, it does not follow that one must stand against basic human decency. Against basic human dignity. Against the humanity of people without proper papers and named, for example, Martinez, as opposed to Svendsen.

Because illegal immigration is bad, it does not make it good for a state -- or its political leadership -- to treat illegal immigrants as less than human, less than deserving of basic medical care. In fact, it's abominable.

The Declaration of Independence -- a favorite of the "patriots" to whom Heineman is trying to suck up -- wasn't referring to just Americans, though the unborn children of undocumented women here most certainly will be United States citizens upon birth.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

CALL ME A commie, but it seems to me that the unalienable right to life is considerably more expansive than the right not to be aborted. It seems to me there is precious little difference between eradicating a helpless human being in the womb and letting that life be lost or compromised due to willful neglect -- all in a land of unimaginable wealth.

When you consider that all the data show it costs the state far, far less money to provide poor women -- legal and illegal -- prenatal care than to deal with the medical consequences lack of care often leads to, that willful neglect becomes abjectly sinister.

And now the battered pro-life movement reels amid the realization that wasting its time and treasure on electing anti-abortion politicians has gotten it no closer to building a pro-life culture. The siren song of sinister pols like Dave Heineman has led good people to the abyss they sought so desperately to avoid.

The right side of the Grand Canyon is no less deadly to leap into than the left.

What's so tragic is that pro-lifers who put an anti-abortion death dealer like Heineman into office never figured that out until they were halfway to becoming a grease spot on the dust.

Does he just play a hypocrite on television?

When the subject is capital punishment, things get real weird real fast in the Nebraska Legislature.

THE QUESTION before the body (pun unintended) today is whether unicameral Speaker Mike Flood is really a massive hypocrite, or whether he just plays one on television.

From the Omaha World-Herald:

The 31-7 vote came as the Nebraska Legislature had first-round debate to a bill that would change the method of execution from electrocution to lethal injection.

The rejected amendment, offered Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery, was based on a recently passed law in Virginia. It narrowed who qualifies for the death penalty to only those murderers whose crimes was confirmed by DNA evidence, who confessed in a video recording or whose crime was caught on video.

Avery said the recent case of the Beatrice 6 - in which six people convicted of a 1985 murder in Beatrice and were exonerated via DNA evidence - is a reason to narrow the application of the death penalty to those who could be convincingly proven to have committed a heinous murder. "We have an obligation if we are to use lethal injection that we get it right," Avery said.

State Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk, the chief sponsor of the lethal injection bill, said that Avery must be "watching CSI" because DNA and video evidence doesn't exist in every murder case.

"That is a fantasy you on television," Flood said, adding that Avery's bill would change the burden of proof from "without a reasonable doubt" to "conclusive proof."

BUT WAS IT a "fantasy Flood" playing the part of a pretentious butthead, live on the state's NET 2 educational-television channel, which covers the Legislature gavel-to-gavel?

Really, viewers want to know whether the speaker's a clown only when the red light's on. When the gavel came down and the cameras cut out, did Flood go up to Avery, slap him on the back and ask "Was that an over-the-top performance or what?"

Yeah, I was ROFLMAO right in front of the big screen.

AS FAR AS Nebraska's death penalty goes, I have an idea: Do away with it. Save the money, the court fights and the nagging worry about whether -- or when -- we're going to execute an innocent person.

And bypass the whole question surrounding the justice of condemning some kinds of folk to die versus letting others die of old age someday in a prison hospital ward, or even walking out of the state pen on some distant day . . . free as an ex-jailbird.

Finding good reasons for bad things

Somebody always has something somebody else wants.

It might be poontang, or it might be a vote. So what's wrong with reasonable people making a reasonable exchange . . . one want for another?

Right? Right?

HERE, WE HAVE a perfectly reasonable argument in favor of legal prostitution, courtesy of Jessica Woods, as published last April in The Jambar, the student newspaper at Youngstown State University:

According to the Liberator.net, prostitution is the oldest job in the world, dating back to biblical ages where it was seen as an accepted, non-taboo, at least until the New Testament and Christ. Ironic, though, that even in Israel, the "holiest" land in the world, prostitution is legal.

The basic, instinctive need for sex is a primitive desire in all humans. Why shouldn't it be a commodity for sale? Doesn't even the "healthiest" of marriages use sex as a bargaining chip? In comedies like CBS's "Yes, Dear" the wife is always encouraging her husband to do things for her with the promise of sex to come. People find this funny or even identify with him, yet prostitution remains a taboo in our society.

We are a country where a teenager can kill her unborn baby via abortion, in some states without her parents' consent, but a woman can't sell her sexuality for a living. The argument here is "her body, her choice," or at least that's the feminist mantra grew up hearing in regard to abortion. Killing a baby will always be wrong, but earning a living off your body's ability to give pleasure shouldn't be.

In light of the resignation of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer in March, the concept of the "high-class call girl" has been brought to our attention again, just as the Heidi Fleiss scandal of the '90s did.

A young — usually college-age — beautiful, intelligent woman entertains wealthy doctors, lawyers, real estate moguls and celebrities for up to $10,000 a night, cash. The sex is consensual, condoms are used and discretion is enforced, both for the client and the sex worker. The client is satisfied because he knows the woman he is enjoying is routinely tested for STDs and is a willing participant who will not disclose his business, as a mistress likely would. The agency is satisfied because it has amassed a great deal of money and powerful clients. And most importantly, the call girl is satisfied because she has used her mind and body to earn a fantastic sum of money that keeps her in Mercedes and Versace. She has her freedom, power and choice to leave the industry at any time. One could argue that she has more advantages than a common housewife.

ONE ALSO could argue about what part of 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' doesn't the author understand when she contends the taboo against prostitution only goes back to that notorious party-pooper, Jesus Christ. But that's not important now.

What's important is that, when you get right down to it, all the arguments for prostituting one's body -- or, say, one's elective office -- are cut from the same cloth.

Free people. Fair exchange. Mutual benefits.

For instance, Nebraska state senators have all kinds of arguments -- many quite "reasonable" -- in favor of their do-it-yourself pimping, some of which appear in the Omaha World-Herald:

Traditional lobbying groups such as bankers, accountants and farm groups are typical hosts, but the Winnebago Tribe, the City of Omaha and Gov. Dave Heineman also have their free luncheon affairs.

The number of such social events has been steadily rising over the past few years. Often two or three events are going on at the same time.

Observers and participants say the events have increased because of term limits, the desire of organizations to connect with 36 new senators elected in the past two elections and more groups trying to meet with lawmakers over a meal, particularly breakfast and lunch.

"I tried to go to four breakfasts (in one morning) once, and I almost vomited doing it," said former State Sen. Jim Cudaback of Riverdale. "After the 100th one, it really isn't a perk."

(snip)

Nebraska senators and lobbyists defend the meals, saying they are a convenient and sociable way of acquainting legislators with issues and each other. Meetings that involve constituents coming to Lincoln are almost a must-attend, several lawmakers said.

"If a library director is going to drive 140 miles from Kearney to Lincoln, the (least) I can do is come and have lunch with them," said Sen. Galen Hadley of Kearney.

Hadley and some other first-year senators said they try to attend as many events as possible, though they've all heard of senators who gained up to 20 pounds a session because of the meals.

Rogert and several other senators said they saw nothing ethically wrong with taking a free lunch.

"If you work for a company and you're out in the field, you're buying a lunch every single day," Rogert said. "Lunches are the place to do business worldwide."

HEY, IF A HOT BABE is going to drive at least a couple of hours to get a piece of this, the least I can do is be agreeable and accommodating. Right, Honey?

Right?

Honey?

Sweetie?

I mean, it's the polite thing. Honey?

HONEY???

Where are you going with that suitcase?

Love for sale, hunnert dolla . . . cheap!

The sense of entitlement some people feel knows no bounds. And then you have politicians, who are in a class by themselves.

Even as an economic plague sweeps across the land, you have at least one Nebraska legislator who thinks lobbyists' ability to buy him and his colleagues -- and their votes -- needs to keep up with inflation.

Nebraska state lawmakers are considering a bill that would raise campaign spending limits and raise limits on gifts from lobbyists to state officials.

A citizen watchdog group wants to know why Nebraska is increasing the amount spent on politics at a time when most of the nation is cutting back.

Lobbyists have been entertaining state senators on golf courses for years, but rising greens fees and other costs could soon make that impossible.

State Sen. Kent Rogert has proposed raising the gift limit from $50 to $100.

"I'd like to point out that very little costs $50 anymore, including a round of golf," he said. "It hasn't been changed in 20 years."

Rogert said that it's not just golf he's focusing on. Other popular gifts, including football and concert tickets, have also become more expensive.

"In changing the limits from $50 to $100, we're merely trying to improve the process with more common sense, ease and efficiency," Rogert said.

"The perception of raising a gift limit does not fly well with the public," said Jack Gould of Common Cause.

He questions why lobbyists need to give gifts at all, calling it simply a way to buy access to the political process.

"Officials have to be on guard about Greeks bearing gifts," he said.

I DIDN'T think it possible, but there you are. Nebraska has produced a legislator more brazen in his quest to be bought -- or at least rented for a while -- than the Gret Stet of Loosiana. Let us revisit that gem of a story which, by the way, comes courtesy of KETV television in Omaha:

"I'd like to point out that very little costs $50 anymore, including a round of golf," he said. "It hasn't been changed in 20 years."

Rogert said that it's not just golf he's focusing on. Other popular gifts, including football and concert tickets, have also become more expensive.

ROGERT OBVIOUSLY has his priorities as a public (wink, wink) "servant," but being an honest broker for his constituents isn't one of them. What, does Craigslist now have a category for "Senators Seeking Lobbyists"?

I don't know whether, as a Louisianian by birth, to be relieved or, as a Nebraskan by choice, to hang my head in shame. But I do know what needs to be done with Sen. Kent Rogert.

I can't say exactly what that is, being this blog tries to be at least somewhat family friendly, but I'll allow that it involves a 9-iron.