In an editorial dated November 11, 2006, the Times laments:
A new crackdown on Medicaid fraud is forcing states to follow the letter of the law to a harsh and dismal place. Under orders from the Bush administration, they are erecting unnecessary paperwork obstacles that could deny medical care to poor newborns in the crucial first weeks and months of life.
This development is a side effect of the nation’s sour immigration debate. Since July, federal law has required that Medicaid recipients prove citizenship with passports, birth certificates or other documents. The goal is to prevent “theft of Medicaid benefits by illegal aliens,” according to the legislation’s main sponsor, Representative Charlie Norwood, a Georgia Republican who has worked tirelessly to make life in the United States as difficult as possible for people who lack papers.
The Times applauds the murder of millions of babies via abortion, but
bewails the problems of lawbreaking, illegal immigrants.
What is wrong with following the letter of the law? Yes, we know that the judicial activism advocated by the Times and its fellow socialists dictates that judges must decide cases on the basis of what sociologists tell them the law ought to be.
Before the advent of our socialistic welfare state under the New Deal in the 1930s, needy immigrants were aided by private charities, church groups, immigrant societies, and big-city political machines looking to buy votes.
Perhaps the Sulzberger family, the patriarchs of the Times, should put their money where their mouth is; pool their wealth with that of Red Ned Lamont and privately fund care for illegals’ newborns.
Visit MoveOff Network Members
Back to summary...
