Obamacare = Abortion and the opponents prove my point.

Pro-abortion advocates have shown their duplicity, and I have no doubt that their goal is to use our tax money to pay for abortion. Madeline Anderson's letter in the August 19th Wisconsin State Journal tries to portray things differently. But read carefully she proves my very point.

First she claims that its "a myth that taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for abortions." She then asserts that the "reality" is that private plans "already cover abortion" and that "people should not lose the benefits they currently hold."

Well, Ms. Andersen, which is it? Will the federal tax supported health plan NOT cover abortion and therefore "reduce" benefits, or will my taxes pay for abortion so that you can keep your "benefits"? You can't have it both ways. Both cannot be true!

In contrast, the letter the same day from Barbary Lyons points out that unless abortion is specifically prohibited from the "Obamacare" bill, moves will certainly be made to increase the number of abortions, using our tax dollars. That is clearly the truth.

Course appoval fees (builders)

I ask that you do not implement another fee increase for builder education. You are already collecting fees from us to pay for our registrations and supplement the state coffers. Now you want us to pay to register the classes, so that we can take classes, so that we can pay fees, so that we can be in business? No way!

And don't get this wrong: These fees all get passed on to us and to the consumer one way or another. Whether a class is "free" or not, that cost goes into the expenses of the business offering the class. Whether we pay a fee to go to the class, or whether the business fits it into the overhead of their pricing structure, eventually it goes on to the builder and then to the consumer.

The Builders Associations and businesses offering these courses are your allies. The State was to be responsible for funding builder eduction. Now not only has that funding disappeared, you are proposing for things to go the other direction and to charge the educators!

Finally, won't this actually increase the workload at the DOC? You are proposing that the courses be reviewed every 3 years instead of every 5 years. Why increase your workload?

Clearly, I oppose these changes.