What do Democrats do when a hard-hitting anti-Obamacare ad threatens the electoral prospects of a Democrat Congressman? Well… You unleash the lawyers. With any luck, you might even be able to use the weight of the FCC to muscle local stations into denying the ad any air time. Because, obviously, using government regulatory agencies to strong arm broadcasters into censoring political advertisements, is a tactic in total compliance with the intent of the First Amendment.
Julia Boonstra is currently suffering from Leukemia. And, until the implementation of Obamacare, she had insurance coverage that provided her with desired benefits. In fact, she was happy. Her condition was improving. Her treatments were working, and she was not driving herself into bankruptcy fighting a horrendous form of cancer… Then came Obamacare.
As is explained in the Americans for Prosperity (AFP) ad – aimed at Democrat Gary Peters – Julia was among the millions of Americans who saw their insurance evaporate as Obamacare implementation lumbered forward. And while she’s been able to retain the same doctor as before, her new Obamacare insurance has left her with an unpredictable schedule of out-of-pocket costs. In short: She liked her plan – she wasn’t able to keep her plan – and now she’s stuck with inadequate insurance that threatens her financial stability. Julia is now worse off (financially and physically) thanks to the President’s boondoggled web of regulation known affectionately as “Obamacare.”
But why allow little things (like Julia, the cancer survivor, losing her preferred healthcare) to interfere with the election of Democrats? Michigan Democrats, who support Gary Peters, have filed paperwork to get the ad pulled from the air. They’ve even threatened to have the FCC pull the broadcast licenses of any station that decides to air the ad.
Lawyers for the Democrat Representative have claimed that the ad is “misleading” and “deceptive”; and therefore could violate broadcaster’s obligation to the FCC and general public. Yep… Michigan Dems are willing to use the FCC to censor a cancer victim… Oh, but it gets better:
The lawyer’s basis for claiming the ad is “deceptive” and “misleading” is a Washington Post article on Julia’s story. (Ya know, the same Washington Post that said Obamacare would be a boost to the economy, and would not lead to reduced work hours... Clearly the WaPo needs to fact check their own stuff before tearing apart AFP.)
In the ad, Julia claims that she lost her health coverage due to Obamacare… Well, she did. She also claims that her out of pocket costs have since skyrocketed, because… Well… They have. And she also claims that this is a direct result of Obamacare… Yeah. Because it is.
The Washington Post, however, decided to give Julia’s story 2 Pinocchio’s (indicating it was “misleading”) because in the end she might not end up with any greater amount of financial hardship….
Of course, what the Washington Post (and Michigan Democrats) seem to be missing is that Julia was lied to by advocates of Obamacare. She doesn’t like her new insurance. (And who would? It has unpredictable monthly costs, as opposed to her old plan that was set at an affordable – and comprehensive – monthly amount.) She liked her old plan. But, because some Democrats in DC decided that this new plan would be better for Julia, that’s what she’s stuck with.
Something as personal, and private, as the purchasing of health insurance is no longer in her control. Her choices, her preferences, her personal interests are no longer important. Obamacare is an affront to liberty on the most basic level. Suddenly, Julia found that her concerns were no longer important. The only thing that mattered was what Obamacare said she could, or could not, have in regards to healthcare.
And, as if stripping a Leukemia patient of their preferred healthcare system wasn’t enough, Democrats in Michigan are now looking to silence her story. The fundamental message conveyed by Julia’s Obamacare-induced drama is being censored by the same nannycrats who forced her into a sub-par insurance plan in the first place. (Oh, and before any Democrat says “but this new plan will actually be better for her”: Maybe that’s a decision she should be allowed to make for herself.) Heck, they even threatened to get the FCC involved – which isn’t that farfetched in a world where the IRS targets only conservative 501(c)4’s for audits.
So… Now the Democrats are going to go around threatening to strip broadcasters of their FCC license if they air ads that Democrats consider to be “misleading”? Don’t such authoritarian dreams of control give any other Americans a chill? Think of the irony: Democrats in Michigan are unleashing lawyers to censor the backlash created by Democrat lies.
And that may be the most poignant point to be made: The only reason Julia is part of an AFP ad (as opposed to happily living her life in anonymity) is because the President, Democrats, and Representative Gary Peters, lied when they said she could keep her plan if she liked it…
In other words: Democrats are hoping to pull the ad – because it makes a perfectly valid point.
Here's the ad... Now judge for yourself:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member