You Can't Please Everyone

Will They Ever Learn?

A day after the health care bill passed the house and was sent to the senate for final approval people on both sides of the aisle are up in arms over the legislation. One thing seems to be constant though, and that is that people do not want this health care reform bill, at least not in its current form.

President Obama secured the final votes necessary when he duped Rep. Bart Stupak (D - Mich.) into believing that an executive order would protect against federally funded abortions. Rep. Stupak defended his vote swap Monday after the vote on Fox News saying, "executive order has the full force of law." Rep. Stupak went on to acknowledge that President Obama could at any time repeal the executive order and that lawsuits in the future could uphold the executive order if such a thing were to happen. In the end, Rep. Stupak said, "I did it because I stood for the principle to protect the sanctity of life." As contradictory as Stupak's statements are to the reality of the situation, Stupak's actions brought to the forefront the flaw in the liberal Left's ideology, and that is that you simply can't please everyone.



Liberals brought forth health care reform under the guise that it would offer affordable health care to everyone in the nation. To understand just how naive the premise of such an endeavor is, one need only look at the backlash that has occurred following the health care vote on Sunday and Rep. Bart Stupak's relation to that backlash.

National Organization for Women (NOW) President Terry O'Neill expressed disappointment over the passage of the health care bill in a statement posted on the NOW website.

• I truly wish that the National Organization for Women could join in celebrating the historic passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It pains me to have to stand against what many see as a major achievement. But feminist, progressive principles are in direct conflict with many of the compromises built into and tacked onto this legislation.

Oneill went on to state that the pro-life restrictions in the bill directly conflict with the goals and aims of the NOW organization saying, "[w]e call upon President Obama and elected officials in both houses to commit to a process of steady improvement of our health care system that will result in true reform with universal coverage, realistically affordable rates and no discrimination."

So, Rep. Stupak's deal with President Obama which led to an executive order that purportedly barres federal funds from being used for abortions conflicts with the wants and needs of Terry Oneill and the NOW organization. Well, NOW was not the only organization that was upset with the bill's handling of federally funded abortions.

According to journalist William McGurn in his article "Pro-life Democrats, R.I.P." for the Wall Street Journal, Bart Stupak's vote on Sunday has drawn strong criticism from the National Right to Life, the Catholic bishops and the Susan B. Anthony List. McGurn explains the triviality of the executive order and points out how both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups are citing its ineffectiveness to ban the use of federal funds for abortions.

• Planned Parenthood calls it a "symbolic gesture," and says "it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban." Rep. DeGette, who screamed so loudly when the Stupak amendment passed, said she had no problem with the executive order because "it doesn't change anything."

Rightfully so, McGurn shows that both sides of the abortion argument are pointing to the ineffectiveness of the executive order as the cause of, on the one hand, disappointment with Stupak's reliance on it, and, on the other hand, pleasure in Stupak's ignorance for relying on it. Moreover, what the two sides are beginning to show is the fatal flaw in the liberal Left's thinking.

One would think that common sense would dictate that no endeavor can please everyone but that doesn't seem to be the case with liberals. Instead, liberals set out to bring about policy that they think will do just that. Pretty arrogant, right? Or, simply ignorant? Both. For an "intellectual elite" it seems that such a simple concept would be easily understood but it's not. Moreover, doesn't the idea of making everyone the same go against the liberal Left's principals (i.e. Darwinism, diversity, evolution, etc.)?

If everyone is given everything and everyone is satisfied with what they have, then how does one progress? They won't be able to progress because they will have nothing to strive for. In the absence of progression, in either direction, evolution can not occur - health care in America has evolved but liberals do not like the way that it has. If every one is forced to get insurance that the government decides it should cover, then where is the diversity? Where is the driving force behind Darwinism; superiority? When there is no superiority how does one improve? If there is no contrast between bad and good, right and wrong, and have and have-not, then how does one even recognize their own mediocrity or value? It would seem that the underlying principal here is not a humanitarian one as the Left would have you believe but that it is one of taking from everyone that which they need in order to succeed.