State-Journal.com - Chandler explains why he went against the party line

Photo By Kelly MackeyBen Chandler talks to Elkhorn Elementary School fifth-grade students in the library.

Without uttering the phrase “health care,” U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler told a throng of his youngest constituents that he voted against his party on the landmark legislation passed last Saturday.

Chandler spoke to fifth-graders at Elkhorn Elementary School Thursday, bringing along with him dozens of pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution.

He told the students that President Barack Obama urged him to vote in favor of a piece of legislation last week.

“I ended up not being able to vote the way he wanted me to, but he was OK with it because I had supported him on lots of other things,” he said.

“It’s very important not to get mad when someone doesn’t agree with you, because there will always be another vote. There will always be another issue that will come down the road that you need to work together on.”

The kids didn’t ask him what the vote was about – they were more interested in Obama’s basketball skills anyway. (Chandler told them he’d try to get the president to play a pickup game with the University of Kentucky Wildcats.)

But he spoke with The State Journal about his vote against the health care bill, which passed 220-215.

Chandler was one of 39 Democrats who voted against the measure, and that has angered some of his constituents in Kentucky’s sixth district.

“I was deeply concerned about the cost of the program,” he said, as the kids filed out of the school library to board their buses home.

“It was $1.2 trillion, which is just quite a lot of money to spend.”

Chandler worried that the legislation wouldn’t actually save money, and it could increase expenses for small businesses. He says he was looking for a bill that would control the “burgeoning cost of health care.”

“What we need to do is reduce the cost of health care – we don’t need to increase the cost,” he said.

“It looked to me like small businesses were looking at a cost increase as a result of this bill, which would have meant a loss of employment.

“That’s another thing we don’t need right now, is to lose more jobs when the economy is suffering.”

In its current form, Chandler says the bill puts rural hospitals at risk of losing funding from Medicare and Medicaid.

“There are communities in this district that could potentially lose their hospitals, and I was concerned about that,” he said.

“The hospital here in Frankfort, I think was implicated, and would have lost a great deal of support.”

Chandler voted in favor of an amendment to the bill that would prohibit a government-run insurance plan from covering abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life.

The Associated Press reports that the Stupak Amendment also bars any health plan receiving federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. If women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they’d have to buy it separately, as a so-called rider on their policy.

“I support a woman’s right to choose, I support Roe v. Wade – I’m not for repealing that,” Chandler said.

“But I have been fairly consistent on the expenditure of public money for abortions, and I have generally been against that.”

The amendment’s proponents say the goal is to ensure that a longstanding ban on using federal dollars for elective abortions continues under the new health care legislation.

Abortion-rights advocates say it would make it harder for millions of women to have health insurance that covers abortion. They depict it as an assault on American women’s reproductive rights.

“There is a dispute about the effect of it, and I think that’s still being disputed by both sides,” Chandler said, adding that some say it goes further than the current ban on federally funded abortions.

“I don’t think it affects private plans,” he said. “I think there are those who think that it does.”

Chandler says his overall position on abortion doesn’t satisfy his constituents on either side of the debate.

“The Right to Life people don’t like my position, and the pro-choice people don’t either. So I just try to call it as best I can in the middle – that’s just how I see the issue.

“I think it ought to be legal and rare. I think we should try to limit the number of abortions to the best of our ability, but I don’t think that we ought to prevent a woman from getting an abortion,” he continued.

“If circumstances call for it, it’s between her and her doctor and her maker.”

But none of these issues came up during Chandler’s talk with the fifth-graders. He told them he tries to balance what his constituents want with what he thinks is the right thing to do.

“The main power I have is the ability to cast my vote on very important matters that our country is facing, on behalf of the people in central Kentucky,” he said.

They talked about his career in state and federal government, his travels abroad and his family – including their three cats and four dogs.

He encouraged them to read often and work together, and if they must disagree with each other, to do so with respect.

Central Kentucky’s youngsters had some requests of their own for the congressman.

They asked him to tell the president hello from Elkhorn Elementary, and to fund an outdoor classroom at their school.

He said his Green Schools bill – passed twice in the House, but never in the Senate – could help with eco-friendly projects like that one.

The bill would put several billion dollars into school construction, with the focus of renovating older buildings with solar panels and geothermal heating systems to make them more energy efficient.

“It also puts people to work, and goodness knows we need it,” he said. “And those are jobs that cannot be exported.”

On Tuesday, Republican Andy Barr announced that he intends to run for Chandler’s seat in the House. The Lexington lawyer said he wants to help stop “the out of control spending” in Washington.

Chandler didn’t have much to say yet about his 2010 opponent.

“I’m used to it – it’s nothing new,” he said. “I’ve had opponents every time I’ve run for Congress, so I’ll just treat it the same way I always have.

“I’m proud to represent the people of central Kentucky, and I hope that they will give me another chance to continue to do that,” he said.

“I am deeply grateful to them for the chance they’ve given me.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

32.	Posted by trying about 8 hours ago
	You always bring up that 'your mother still loves you' phrase when you are out of arguments. And you have just proven you are. Continuously posting the same propaganda doesn't prove that you have new ones, doesn't prove you have understood the old ones, and doesn't prove that it is right. Repetition of falsehoods doesn't turn them into truths. Your mother should have taught you that. But whatever, buddy, I can read and comprehend English just fine. Apparently you can't or you wouldn't keep just repeating what others send down the Obama pipeline. Do your own research. Yes, it's an amendment. You need to put it into context, which is the bill and other existing law. Good grief, even according to factcheck abortion is covered. There are plenty of loopholes all over the place. Give it a rest already with that pro-abortion tantrum nonsense of yours. You don't seem to understand half of what you copy paste to this forum. For example: "The issue is that the Repugs have NO INTENTION of ever outlawing abortion outright, even though if they were really serious about it, they had every opportunity to do so during the last 8 years. It is the base that is being fooled into believing that banning abortion is one of the Repug's main objectives, which is evidenced by the fact that it is ALWAYS a major plank in their platform." Lol, do you seriously believe that? Wow, the leftist agenda has really twisted you mind. Truth is, Republicans have for decades not stood for anti-abortion. There are some far rightists maybe but that's not really representing the party. Just like you as a far leftist don't really represent the Democrats. There is no opposition against what has been allowed in terms of abortion for years. However, there is opposition to making it easier to get an abortion, to provide less counseling, to kill a baby that has survived an abortion (something your beloved Obama apparently approves of). But whatever, the truth is utterly lost on you. It's also noticeable you don't bother to read what others post. I would recommend it, it wouldn't make you look like such a fool. I stated exactly what is covered and what not. And as smartgirl pointed out, and you should look it up and not just accept the number, of those insurances who cover abortion, not all abortion cases are covered with all insurance. If they state differently down your leftist pipeline shoot a message up that they need to stop omitting parts of the truth. Dang, the leftist news really leaves out a lot for you... you just keep swallowing the bait/koolaid, hook, line and sinker. Go march to the Obama tune. Don't even dare form your own thought. Could be hazardous to your health. "How does it feel to be duped over and over and over..." You tell me, you have the vast experience in that matter. And btw, yeah, right, you have all your teeth. Next you'll claim you have all your hair still, too, lol. num num num that koolaid has literally rotten all the teeth in your mouth rofl Oh, and by the way, you might want to check on who favors the ultra-rich. Granted, Obama hasn't been in office for a year yet, but who thus far benefited the most from what came out of his administration? Right, the rich, not only the ultra-rich, even the so called only rich, lol. Yeah, they called for investigation of CEO and upper management pays... did that ever really happen? Nope! All a ruse. Now they push more funds into the failed TARP... who benefits? The rich. Stimulus package... Not much job creation, some claims to have x jobs saved (yeah, that is quantifiable), but the money is handed out... to whom exactly? Ah right, the rich and ultra-rich, the ones that own the companies, the banks, the stocks, .... But who is still left holding an empty bucket...? The poor... Now tell me again, who is favoring the rich? num num num Wake up already!

30.	Posted by daniel2497451 about 9 hours ago
	I am nearly 60 years old and I am still waiting on my first cavity in my permanent teeth (which I have all of), thank you. Ha, I am not out of arguments, but what good does it do when you can't even understand what I am saying or what you say you've read? I know it is in English, which puts you at a significant disadvantage, but you are in America now, so suck it up. The Stupid Amendment isn't even that long. I don't even have a dog in this fight as I have never had an abortion, nor ever will...it is just the underhanded way of the anti-choice bunch that get's my dander up. Beside, the Stupid Amendment is a moot issue. It and nothing like it will be in the final bill. However, for those others who are tuning into this issue late, let me just say that you should not be fooled by the misdirection orchestrated by the anti-choice bunch...they are unethical and very sneaky in their quest to return you to the back alley abortion daze. When the health care issue came up again this time, both supporters and opponents of the right to choose agreed in theory to maintain the status quo (read: the Hyde Amendment) in the health care legislation. The agreement was that the much needed health care reform was too important and not the appropriate venue to continue the fight over abortion and neither side should attempt to use it to push their agendas. In keeping with this agreement, the Capps Amendment that maintained the status quo on abortion funding was introduced. This proposal was adopted and ultimately included in the original House bill. The Senate Finance Committee also passed a bill that closely mirrored this treatment of abortion funding. Yet as usual, the Catholic Church (NAMBLA), refused to accept the Capps compromise and wrote a much more restrictive amendment that Rep. Bart Simps..., er ah, Stupak introduced and that our beloved Congressman Chandler voted for without really even understanding it, as was evidenced by his own admissions in the story above. Bad Representative...no donut. The Stupid, er, Stupak Amendment prevents the public option from covering abortion, no matter how it is funded. Taxpayer money could not be used to pay for abortion services OR for insurance plans that include abortion services beyond those allowed by Hyde, even if those services are paid for ENTIRELY WITH PRIVATE MONEY. This would have a chilling effect on private insurers to only sell plans that include abortion to customers who can pay 100 percent of their premiums without government assistance. Therefore, any government payments to employer-sponsored insurance plans outside the exchange would carry the Stupid, er, Stupak restrictions. That is much more restrictive than currently. So unlike the status quo Hyde Amendment, that allows states to use their own money to finance abortions, PRIVATE insurance companies would be prevented from using private premiums to finance abortions if there is just a single person in the plan who used a government subsidy to pay a share of their premium. Since about 86% of exchange participants will depend on some government assistance to purchase health insurance, it makes it highly unlikely that private insurers will offer abortion services in their plans. True enough, although insurers would not be "prevented" from selling abortion riders in the exchange, it would be unlikely that they will do so as evidenced by the fact that in the 5 states where abortion coverage is required to be sold in this manner, NONE offer this type of rider. If that isn't much more restrictive and shaking up the status quo, what is? Get real.