This chart is a graphic representation of that quote.

Click here to download the full-size. It’s even scarier. (PDF)

This is an official update of the chart from last summer from Rep. Kevin Brady from Texas.

Keep in mind, this program hasn’t been implemented yet. What happens when Congress goes back to “fix” some of the issues? This chart is doomed to get worse. Far worse.

Guess who owns the majority of tanning salons? The majority of tanning salons are small businesses owned by women. According to CNN Money:

“This is going to close tanning salons,” said Joseph Levy, vice president of the International Smart Tan Network, which has 3,000 member salons. “You can’t just pass on a tax like this to customers and not have it hurt your bottom line.”

Levy estimates that about 9,000 jobs are in jeopardy and more than 1,000 salons are at risk of being forced to close their doors. The tax also targets middle-class and female business owners, with about two-thirds of tanning salons in the U.S. owned by women, he said.

In addition to putting thousands of employees out of work, Levy predicts the tax will ultimately generate 40% to 50% less than the projected $2.7 billion.

“There was no due diligence done on how much money this will raise, and it’s going to be nowhere near what they are expecting,” he said. “After taxing female entrepreneurs and primarily female customers, this is the other part of what’s so repulsive about this tax.

Wait. I thought we had to pass Obamacare because being a “woman is an pre-existing condition?” (That’s incorrect. Women are statistically more likely to go to the doctor and have major illnesses. When you use a service more, it costs more. You can could also opt out of expensive maternity riders on most plans.) Women overwhelmingly voted for Obama, yet in his first major legislative win, he directly targets businesses owned by women? Why the hate, Barry? Do you have issues with women?

Tanning salon owners are also largely middle class. What was that promise about no new taxes on the middle class? I’m fairly certain that the average tanning salon owner is not making $250,000 or more per year.

These facts are probably a surprise to most Democrats and Obamacare supporters. Since the majority of tanning salons are in middle class neighborhoods in fly-over country, I doubt that those swanky policy makers have ever deigned to walk into one. They probably thought this is a magic revenue stream that would bring in funds for the largest tax increase in history. That’s how taxes work, right? The money just rolls into the government’s coffers without negatively hurting anyone. I keep forgetting that the Anointed One is capable of making money grow on trees in Michelle’s kitchen garden.

Some may scoff, thinking the pro-life community is dead. Remember that young people are more pro-life than pro-choice.

Also, the pro-abortion community has been vastly out-fundraised in recent years. That’s out-fundraised in years when there hasn’t been a major pro-life battle waged. The appointments of Sotomayor and Sebelius were the biggest ones in recent years. With Stupak there’s an element of betrayal that people will not soon forget. He made it personal.

The grassroots are out for blood. The RNC hit their goal of raising $402,010 in less than 12 20* hours and just upped their moneybomb. Last night on Twitter, people were practically throwing their wallets at anyone who was running against Stupak in MI-1. The path to November will be quite a ride.

Susan B. Anthony List quickly took back the “Defender of Life” award that was promised to Stupak at their event next week. The Susan B. Anthony Candidate List Fund president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, told the press:

“Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.’ The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote ‘yes’ on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.”

National Right to Life:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.

The Family Research Council released the strongest statement I’ve ever seen Tony Perkins utter:

FRC Action will seek to defeat many of the Members from majority pro-life districts who voted wrong today, and they will have plenty of free time to realize the grave mistake they have committed on the unborn today with their vote.

Americans United for Life have a blog post up explaining why Stupak’s Executive Order still funds abortion.

*I was wrong. The RNC hit their goal after 20 hours via TechRepublican.

For a blogger, I really don’t know what to write. Anything I say will be construed as hyperbole by my liberal readers and now sadly, former friends.

I’ve been at this political blogging for long time now. I’ve written many an impassioned blog post and advocated for and against many bills. Something about health care is different. At this point, the brutal and horrible debate has cost two friendships. A fellow conservative friend agreed that this is a different fight and commented that it’s personal.  I’ve never encountered something like this before.

My opposition to this bill goes far beyond party lines. On this fight, the personal is political.

In August of 2004, I was a senior at the University of Tennessee. I remember walking towards Dunford Hall, where I worked for the campus IT department when I realized my phone was on silent. I had seven missed calls from my mom. Immediately, I called her back. The news was devastating. My grandfather had cancer.

Like most men of his generation, he was a veteran and depended on the VA for his health care. For more than a year, he had repeatedly gone to the VA with stomach pains. He kept getting prescriptions for antacids and sent home. After my grandmother insisted, he visited a private physician. The news was bad. He had colon cancer. The same disease that killed his mother, my great-grandmother, back in the 70s.

Colon cancer is treatable if caught early. My grandfather did what he was supposed to do and went to the doctor when symptoms started. Even though he had a family history of cancer, no one ordered a colonoscopy. No one had investigated it more. After fighting it for several years, he passed away in January 2007, a small, fragile shell of the tanned construction worker that I try to remember.

That, my friends, is the treatment we’re going to get in the near future. If our government can’t even provide adequate treatment to the brave men and women who fought for our country, there’s not much hope for us.

Health care also crosses a philosophical line for me.

This isn’t socialism, but it opens the door towards socialism. Yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that this bill will put 50% of private companies under the thumb of the government. That is unacceptable.

I realize that I’ll lose many of you here. This battle over health care gets down to fundamental differences between the two warring political philosophies. Conservatives, or more accurately classical liberals, believe that freedom is fragile. In order to protect it, the individual must be stronger than the government. Yes, people fall through the cracks. It’s unfortunate and no political system is perfect.

Which is where churches have failed. As a Christian, I believe that we should help our fellow men, and I do what I can. Since churches weren’t doing a good job of taking care of the community, government created entitlement programs. Suddenly American liberals or progressives, who directly come from socialist movements in the United States, had a moral platform. They put conservatives to shame. We weren’t doing our job, and taxpayers have been suffering since then.

Then there’s the gross violation of our Constitutional rights.

I love grassroots politics. It’s why I love the Internet. Small groups of people are able to organize without much cost or hassle and can multiply their voices to influence government. Or that’s the theory.

It hasn’t worked that way in the health care fight. I’ve watched as liberals I know, Christian liberals, have scoffed at “Tea baggers” and insulted them. There is nothing wrong with protesting and gathering to fight a bill that you oppose. That’s about as American as it gets.

But not to this government or current Democrats.

Obama and Democratic leadership have responded to our concerns with arrogance. When we object, we’re shushed and told, “it will save money.” That’s what has bothered me the most: the arrogance that these people know better!

We have rights to object and question the actions of our elected officials. That’s what makes this country a democracy. The fact that thousands of people have repeatedly dropped everything and driven all night on their own dime is astounding. These aren’t lemmings who blindly listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. These are people concerned about the future of our country and our spending. The failure to recognize that is the height of arrogance, and those who have shown those behaviors will be job hunting come November.

We do need health care reform in this country, but this is bad bill. If Democrats can’t realize that, they deserve to lose in 2010.

The groups are divided over whether the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortions. Status quo, as dictated in the Hyde amendment, bans taxpayer funding of the procedure in programs such as Medicaid, except when the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape or incest.

Members of the Pro-Choice Caucus say that they don’t like the Senate bill because it requires women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums.

The line, women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums, makes my blood run cold.

The Pro-Choice Caucus infers that there are women out there who pro-actively pay for abortion insurance. Insurance is an economic decision to invest in services that you will possibly need. When you opt into getting a specific policy, you are acknowledging that the odds are against you. For example, if you live on a mountain, are you likely to get flood insurance?

Women who opt for this coverage would make a premeditated decision thinking, “It is likely that I will get pregnant unexpectedly. If I do, I want to abort any child that I conceive.”

Perhaps I’m naive. I’ve always believed that even those who support abortion view it as a worst case scenario. Lately, the left has managed to shock me by endorsing abortion with glee. It’s as though pro-abortion advocates are shouting, “Who cares if abortion is murder? I’m ok with that. In fact,  I’m going to be a cheerleader for it because a woman’s “right” the most important factor. To hell with everything else.”

Just look at Feministing’s response to Mary Ann Sorrentino, former Planned Parenthood executive director in Rhode Island, when she questioned Angie Jackson’s live tweets of her abortion.

Sorrentino’s piece reads like she’s telling Jackson to be ladylike, to be a “good girl.” There are certain things a woman just shouldn’t speak about in public. This isn’t the feminism of a previous generation – it’s an argument that the divides between public and private should be maintained, with women’s experiences kept in the private sphere. It’s an argument for silence, for stigma, and for an appropriate way of being a lady.

This goes against the approach to destigmatizing abortion that I learned from pre-Roe organizers. The Redstockings Abortion Speakout in 1969 began a traditional of women telling their abortion stories publicly to humanize the procedure, to bring it into the public sphere, and to remove shame. These women didn’t listen when they were told their stories should be kept private. Jackson used new technology to share the experience as it was happening, a new twist on an old consciousness raising technique.

In removing the stigma of abortion, feminist forces aren’t justifying this debate, they’re celebrating it. They are reveling in this legal right regardless if it is good for women. Forget the gory details and pain that Angie Jackson’s tweets revealed. She’s raising the collective consciousness of womankind! To hell with anything else. As long as the feminist agenda is advanced, nothing else matters.

Anyone else sickened by this?