Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Garrett: Pro-life. Unless you are an uninsured child

How sad it is to be represented by a Republican who consistently votes against his community's interests.

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 906 - Representative Scott Garrett voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act which would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In other words, hhe voted against insuring another four million kids who lack health insurance because their parents simply don't make enough money to pay for it.

New Jersey has a greater percentage of uninsured now than just five years ago. This bill would have provided health insurance for close to 200,000 of them (down from the larger number in the original Democratic version of the bill). But even that increase was too much for Garrett, who toed the GOP party line that effective government programs must not be allowed to grow, for fear that people might start to believe that government can actually help them.

Of course, the term "pro-life" that Garrett proudly wears only applies to before one is born and when they are about to die. Once they are here in this world - whether they need Hurricane Relief (which Garrett voted against), or health insurance that they can't afford - suddenly Garrett isn't so "pro-life" anymore.

What a terrible, terrible vote. It's not the childrens' fault that their parents are poor. And the amount of money at stake is remarkably low in the grand scheme of things -- compared to tax cuts for the richest Americans or a couple of months in Iraq for example.

Will no one rid of this representative who votes against our interests?

4 comments:

Shulman for Congress said...

Interesting to me that we live in a society in which no one (at least no one reasonable) challenges a child's right to an education no matter how poor, and yet where members of our congress can reject the principle that all children have a right to be in good health when they sit in that classroom. Thank you for your focus on this issue. Dennis Shulman

Theresa said...

Yet this vote is in direct opposition to what he has on his website:

"Support for the family as the foundation of a strong society"

"Scott Garrett has been a strong supporter of a pro-family Congressional agenda that covers all aspects important to a vital and health family life, including initiatives to preserve the sanctity of marriage, require parental notification for a minor daughter’s abortion or prescription for contraceptive drugs, prohibit taking minors across state lines to circumvent parental notification laws, improve access to free medical services, expand information for parents on adoption options, and protect the authority of states to display the Ten Commandments in public places."

I guess a healthy family life doesn't include health care if you're poor.

Anonymous said...

Nov. 16 2007 -

I just received a Garrett flyer explaining that the reasons he's against SCHIP were because of partisan bickering and because millions of children would have to start smoking by 2017 in order to pay for the program!!

Yes, I understand how smoking can break up a family and a pro-family conservative would have a problem with that.

And the saddest thing is that there ARE enough rubes in this district to re-elect him once again. The only good thing is that the things he says and does in Congress mean much less than they did compared to when his kind were in control after the coups of 2000 and 2004.

Anonymous said...

There's a good reason why those who call themselves PRO-LIFE are recognizable as contrary to the well being of the living.

Does anyone remember when the anti-abortion movement was energized after the election of Ronald Reagan?

The anti-abortion / anti-choice protestors were quickly identified for what they were.

But they didn't like the description, so they invented something they could be pro. Suddenly they were pro-life (of the unborn) and they branded everyone who favored a woman's choice as PRO-ABORTION. Both were lies.

I said back then "they're all for the death penalty but against abortion. So until you're born, they'll protect you, but after birth, the hell with you".