Catholics United, a group funded by George Soros, a self-avowed atheist and longtime financier of Planned Parenthood, NOW, and NARAL, sent disruptive protesters to our Votes Have Consequences stop in Erie, Pennsylvania where local pro-life activists called out Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper for selling out Pennsylvania values by providing a key vote for the passage of Obama’s health care bill.
The protesters – led by James Salt, political director of Catholics United and close associate of Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius (an avid pro-abortion activist and cheerleader of late-term abortionist George Tiller) – followed the bus as it made additional stops in Meadville, Grove City, and Butler.
It is important to note that during the health care debate, Catholics United actively opposed efforts to add Hyde amendment language to the bill to ensure taxpayer dollars wouldn’t be used to pay for abortions in health care legislation. From the start to the end of the debate, Catholics United worked to undermine the efforts of honest lawmakers working to protect the unborn, their mothers, and the conscience of American taxpayers.
So it comes as no surprise that Catholics United is now doing everything they can to undermine our efforts to educate pro-life voters as the mid-term elections draw near.
Catholics United protesters claimed the SBA List is lying about funding for abortion in health care because of an executive order issued by President Obama.
The problem with their argument is that the executive order doesn’t hold any legal weight, isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and does not even attempt to address all the funding problems in the bill.
The executive order reiterates the accounting gimmick under which federal subsidies will be used to pay for insurance plans that cover elective abortion that Rep. Bart Stupak – the leader of the Democrats who sold out – objected to in a December press release: “… the segregation of funds to pay for abortion is another departure from current policy prohibiting federal subsidy of abortion coverage.”
For proof that the executive order did not ban federal funding of abortion in the health care bill, look no further than Pennsylvania, site of our rallies and Catholic United's protests.
Just over a month ago, on July 13th, HHS approved $160 million in federal taxpayer funding for Pennsylvania to establish a new high-risk insurance pool program that would cover any legal abortion in the state.
Only after the National Right to Life Committee and other pro-life groups and lawmakers very publicly protested the funds did HHS decide to ensure the taxpayer subsidized plan wouldn't include elective abortion.
But in assurances to pro-abortion groups, White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle wrote in a blog post, “is not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature of the program and the population it serves.”
So, it wasn't the executive order that made the difference, only a very public outcry only because pro-life groups were paying attention.
Thus, decisions made on whether abortions will be covered in taxpayer-subsidized health care will be decided on a case-by-case basis by President Obama’s appointees to HHS, not his executive order. And even if the executive order had any weight, it could easily be reversed by future presidents.
Instead of an executive order, Dahlkemper and other once pro-life Democrats could have held their ground and demand the insertion of statutory Hyde language permanently banning the health care bill from funding abortion. Of course, Catholics United opposed Hyde language, saying it went “too far.”
Stupak and Dahlkemper folded their cards, caved to party bosses, and now they are learning the consequences of their actions. Stupak has already retired, and our Votes Have Consequences project – with your continued support – is ensuring that every voter that cares about the protection of the unborn in Kathy Dahlkemper’s district knows she sold them out. And they’ll remember in November.
-- Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List
Over the weekend, the Votes Have Consequences Express hit the Indiana State Fair where the staff enjoyed eating different foods you can only find at a decent state fair:
On Sunday, the bus headed to Toledo, Ohio where it met up with local pro-life activists for a cook-out.
And today, the bus tour hit the Keystone State, making stops in Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper's district. As noted last week, Dahlkemper preempted the bus tour on the very front page of her Congressional website.
Besides her own spin, Dahlkemper supporters organized by Catholics United, a pro-abortion front group funded by pro-abortion billionaire George Soros, who also funds Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW, came to our stop in Erie and followed the bus to our additional stops:
More on them later.
Luckily, four times as many local pro-life activists were there to support their local speakers including Tim Broderick, director of People for Life; Abigayle A. Koller, team facilitator of Rachel's Vineyard; Marielle Lafaro, first vice president of People for Life, and Ed Franz, former candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in Pennsylvania’s 3rd District:
And here's a great shot from our stop in Meadville:
The Votes Have Consequences Express continued roaring through Indiana today, making stops in New Albany, Seymour, Columbus, Franklin, and in Indianapolis. Tomorrow, it'll head to the Indiana State Fair before heading to Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The most exciting development today was that the Indiana chapter of National Organization for (Pro-Abortion) Women actually showed up! What they failed to bring without a message. When asked by reporters why exactly they were there and why they were protesting us, they couldn't provide an answer.
And that's no surprise to me. They organized to stick up for Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill... but Ellsworth and Hill want their constituents to believe that they fought against taxpayer funding of abortion. So I don't see how having pro-abortion supporters bolsters their argument. The logic of NOW is just mind boggling.
Anyway, have a great weekend, SuzyB readers and we'll continue to give you updates from the road.
The Indiana Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List are having a state tour. The goal is to push the idea that abortions are funded by taxpayers and focus on Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworths’ vote on the health care bill.
We need action! We are getting slammed by the anti-choicers. Please join us Friday, August 13th, 3:15 pm at the Statehouse for the Indianapolis stop. Please pass this information to other like-minded groups also.
Here's what I don't get.
If Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill were responsible for ensuring that taxpayers didn't fund abortion in ObamaCare like they claim, why is NOW rushing to their defense? Hmmm.......
The Votes Have Consequences Bus Tour is coming to Pennsylvania!
You can thank Rep. KathyDahlkemper, a Democratic Congresswoman selling out the 3rd District for making it all possible.
In 2008, Kathy Dahlkemper campaigned for Congress as a pro-lifer and won. But when push came to shove, Dahlkemper caved to Pelosi and Obama and is personally responsible for ushering in the biggest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade by supporting ObamaCare.
Kathy Dahlkemper put politics above principle, sold out Pennslyvania values, and now it's time for her to pay.
The Votes Have Consequences Bus Tour will roll through her district this upcoming Monday, August 16th. Here's a quick rundown of the press conferences and speakers. Local activists are invited to attend and bring homemade signs.
8:45 AM: Erie at the Erie Intermodal Transportation Center, speakers include Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, Tim Broderick of People for Life, and Abigayle A. Koller of Rachel's Vineyard.
10:30 AM: Meadville at the Bicenntential Park. Speakers include Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave and Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania
12:15 PM: Grove City at the Grove City Memorial Park. Speakers include Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave.
1:45 PM: Butler at the Diamond Square Park. Speakers include Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, Amy Scheuring of the Woman's Choice Network and Chelsea Rearick of Life Choices.
If you're in the area, make sure to bring your friends, co-workers, family, etc. to any of the stops.
We already know that Dahlkemper is a tad bit worried about the bus roaring through her district considering the current splash on the front-page of her Congressional website:
Considering that Dahlkemper's name is spelled wrong -- Dahlkekmper -- and the text contains grammatical errors, I'd say her efforts to spin are off to a bad start.
Why the spin?
Check out our PA-03 polling results here -- 3 out of 4 voters in Pennsylvania's 3rd District oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, and oppose the overall health care bill by a margin of 51% to 39%. Monday should be fun.
We all know how Rep. Bart Stupak caved the day of the passage of the government takeover of health care. But we don’t know why.
Well, we do know why. We’ve known all along that Stupak supported ObamaCare. After getting his amendment passed to the original public option health care bill that passed the House in November, he voted for the final bill. But it is baffling to pro-lifers why he, who had the power to singlehandedly make or break health care reform, would give up all that power in the last minute for a worthless scrap of paper.
An executive order cannot change current law. They can easily be overruled by the courts, which have done so in the past. Legislation from Congress supersedes them. And an executive order can be rescinded at any time. President Obama could sign the order then revoke it 60 seconds later. If the new health care system withstands legal challenges and a possible repeal, this executive order will just become another Mexico City Policy, rescinded and reinstated whenever a new president takes office.
Stupak’s move pleases neither side of the abortion debate. The pro-life side thinks the order doesn’t go nearly far enough, and the pro-abortion side thinks it goes too far. The SBA List rescinded the Defender of Life award we were supposed to give Stupak at our gala two days ago. Other pro-life groups across the country have condemned him and are now working to defeat him instead of supporting him. Pro-abortion groups are doing the same. NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund are now backing Stupak’s primary challenger.
In an editorial to be published Saturday in the Washington Post, Stupak says, “The pro-life groups rallied behind me – many without my knowledge or consent – not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation.”
Oh, yeah? Then why did pro-lifers in Congress vote in favor of the Stupak Amendment in November, thus opening the door for your group to vote for the bill and therefore pass it? And if you didn’t want pro-life groups rallying behind you, why did you accept their money and support?
Mr. Stupak, we trusted you. We thought we had found a hero, someone who was standing up for Life when it looked hopeless. And then we found out you’re just like any other politician, lying to the people to get your way. You broke our heart. And now pro-lifers are not rallying around you, but around your opponent. We’re going to do everything we can to ensure you get defeated with everyone else in November.
*Note: The SBA List, whose mission is to advance pro-life women in politics, does not get involved in an election unless there is a pro-life woman or pro-abortion woman in the race. The last sentence reflects the sentiment of the author, not the SBA List.
The surveys asked registered voters about abortion funding and healthcare reform in the following members’ districts: Jason Altmire (PA-04), Paul Kanjorski (PA-11), Brad Ellsworth (IN-11), Baron Hill (IN-09), Steve Dreihaus (OH-01), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), and John Boccieri (OH-16).
The results tell a clear, consistent story: Constituents represented by pro-life Democrats DO NOT want abortion funding in healthcare – and are much more likely to vote against there Representative next Election Day if he or she supports a healthcare bill with abortion funding.
At least three-in-five voters in these eight congressional districts agreed that “Abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation.” Additionally, more than 70% of voters agreed in four of the districts surveyed (Ohio-06, Ohio-16, Indiana-08, and Indiana-09).
At least two-thirds of voters in each Congressional District opposed “using tax dollars to pay for abortions” and in all districts majorities “strongly opposed.” Furthermore, in three districts opposition reached 80% (Ohio-06, Ohio-16, and Indiana-08).
The pro-life majorities in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana are reflected of the national trend. Americans do not want abortion in health care and are speaking out against it. Representatives beware, constituents are holding their representatives accountable: No federal funding for abortions – period!
An Associated Press article released Monday says Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majority Leader, is pro-life. While Reid would like his conservative constituents to believe this, he has proven through his actions that he is in no way, shape, or form pro-life.
The article, titled “Senate Leader Harry Reid faces tough re-election”, discusses Reid’s growing unpopularity among Nevada voters. The statement in question reads, “Reid, a Mormon, is conservative on gun control [and] opposes abortion rights.”
However, Reid has cast consistently pro-abortion votes in the Senate:
• Voted NO on an amendment that would prohibit the United Nations Population Fund from giving money to organizations that promote coercive abortion and forced sterilization. The bill failed 39-55. • Voted NO on defining the unborn child as eligible for state-funded health coverage. SCHIP is a federal program that finances health services to children of low-income families. In 2002 President George W. Bush instituted the “unborn child rule”, which allowed states to include unborn babies under those covered. But since this was an administration rule, not a law, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered an amendment to make the rule into law to prevent the Obama administration from ending the rule. The amendment failed 39-59. • Voted NO on restoring the Mexico City Policy. The policy prevented U.S. funds from going to any organization that performs or actively promotes abortion overseas. The policy was put into place in 1984 by Pres. Ronald Reagan, ended by Pres. Bill Clinton in 1993, restored by Pres. George W. Bush in 2001, and rescinded again by Pres. Obama in his third day in office. Sen. Mel Martinez offered an amendment to restore the policy again and override Obama’s executive order. The amendment failed 37-60. • Co-sponsors a bill (S. 487) that mandates federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which requires the killing of human embryos to harvest stem cells, even though adult stem cell research does not require the death of human embryos and has proven far more successful. The bill is intended to solidify the mandate that Obama restored shortly after taking office.
Perhaps the most important pro-abortion action Reid has taken is supporting federally funded abortion through the “public option” in health care reform, which would be the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.
It is clear as day that Harry Reid unequivocally supports the radical abortion agenda being pushed by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and all their anti-life buddies. Perhaps the AP should check its facts before publishing false claims such as this.
The pro-life Mexico City Policy, instituted by President Reagan, and rescinded by President Obama during his first week in office, will never be in force again, if pro-abortion Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has his way.
Congressional Quarterly reports,
A permanent repeal became part of the Senate fiscal 2010 State-Foreign Operations spending bill (S 1434) when Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., offered an amendment that the Appropriations Committee adopted with little fanfare in early July.
Lautenberg said he offered the amendment to end the uncertainty that foreign aid recipients face whenever control of the White House shifts between parties. The restriction was originally put in place by the administration of Ronald Reagan, lifted by President Bill Clinton days after taking office, then reinstated by President George W. Bush shortly after his inauguration.
“Health care providers across the globe should be able to care for the health of women and families without ideological obstacles blocking the way,” Lautenberg said.
Family planning advocates have long said the rule restricts health care and social service groups operating in the developing world.
But groups that oppose abortion rights say it’s inappropriate to include such a measure in a spending bill, in part because it would constrain the president’s authority to determine conditions on foreign aid.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said that if the Lautenberg amendment is included, his organization will use the vote on the underlying spending bill to evaluate a lawmaker’s anti-abortion credentials.
“If the leadership want to use this as a vehicle to make a permanent change in the president’s authority and foreign policy, there are senators that are going to have a lot of other ideas . . . and maybe Sen. Reid should plan on spending a couple of weeks on this,” Johnson said, referring to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “Lautenberg has opened that door.”
It's important to note that the Mexico City Policy never limited the amount of federal foreign aid dollars available from the U.S. Government. What it did accomplish was the establishment of a criterion for the types of organizations eligible for funds: namely, those that did not perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Rescinding the policy last January was far and away one of Obama's least popular decisions, according to Gallup.
Taxpayers don't foot the bill for abortions domestically, and they shouldn't be paying for abortions abroad either. One of my favorite quotes about the need for the Mexico City Policy is from Grace Olivarez, a dissenting member of John D. Rockefeller III's federal advisory commission on population:
The poor cry out for justice and equality, and we respond with legalized abortion
THe USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities used Grace's statement for an ad campaign earlier this year. Their advertisements added,
Some people have long been tempted to see abortion as a "quick fix" for the problems of the poor.
But poor women need help providing for their children, not eliminating them.
The United States should continue President Reagan's vision of promoting life-affirming foreign aid that lovingly supports both mother an child, not policies that drives them toward the uncaring hands of an abortionist. We'll keep you updated on Senator Lautenberg's amendment as the legislation moves through the Senate.
A new article posted today on Time magazine’s website admits that Obama is wrong to call claims of abortion-coverage in health care reform bills “fabrications.”
The article says the health care overhaul proposed by House Democrats (H.R. 3200), if enacted, would “mark a significant change” in the federal government’s role in funding abortions. “It would be a dramatic shift,” remarked Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan). Stupak, along with dozens of other House Democrats, has pledge to vote against the final version of reform unless the language is changed to prohibit any kind of publicly funded abortions.
The federal government has a long-standing “hands off” policy for funding of abortion. Since 1976, a law called the Hyde Amendment has prohibited any federal funds from being used for abortion. Private health plans offered to government employees, including members of Congress, have also been barred from covering abortion. The same goes for the military.
The Time article notes that while H.R. 3200 technically does not override these restrictions, but finds a sort of loophole for publicly funded abortion. Under the bill, funds for abortion would be collected only from member dues (premiums) for the proposed “public option” government-run insurance plan. Anyone who signed up for the public plan would be forced to pay for abortion coverage (in an amount “not less than $1 per month), and that is where the problem lies.
“It does represent a policy shift in favor of the abortion-rights community that [would not have happened] under George W. Bush’s administration,” said Glen Halva-Neubauer, a political scientist at Furman University in South Carolina.
Radical abortion supporters claim that this is a compromise where “[American consumers] get to choose which plan they want. They get to choose a plan without abortion,” says Elizabeth Shipp, political director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“But for opponents of abortion, including a number of House Democrats, the proposal represents a major reversal of a decades-old policy of keeping the Federal Government out of the abortion business. In a recent letter to members of Congress, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops called the House proposal a ‘radical change’ built around the ‘illusion’ that public funds could be segregated from private funds in a government-run plan or in private plans that accept federal subsidies. ‘Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortion,’ writes Cardinal Justin Rigali in an Aug. 11 letter to members of Congress,” reads the article.
Stupak, one of the few pro-life Democrats in Congress, has vowed to keep abortion out of the health care bill, saying, “We are going to do everything we can to stop the rule, or the bill, from coming to the floor” for a vote. He added that as many as 39 House Democrats may join him in the effort. This would pose a serious problem because if all 39 did indeed vote against a bill with abortion included, and every House Republican did as well, there would be a tie of 217 yeas to 217 nays.
It is unclear how the Senate will handle abortion in health care, but this much is clear: Obama is using the
same tactics he used during the campaign to coerce some pro-lifers into voting
for him as he is now with abortion in health care. President Obama, stop
misleading the American people, and tell the truth!
To read today's Washington Times editorial on abortion in health care, click here To read the full Time article, click here
The debate about the current health care reform legislation in Congress has received a lot of media attention and is an important issue: it will serve to define the relationship between health care and abortion. Is abortion just another medical procedure morally equivalent to having one’s tonsils taken out? Many physicians in the 19th century did not think so. In fact, a large number of them worked diligently to curtail abortion.
Dr. Frederick Dyer wrote a book titled The Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion that shares the history of caring physicians who believed in defending life. During the 19th century, many physicians became alarmed by the incidence of abortion. Dr. Horatio Storer started what is referred to as the “physicians’ crusade against abortion.” Dr. Storer and many of his colleagues lobbied state legislatures and successfully encouraged the passage of laws restricting abortion, many of which remained intact until Roe v. Wade in 1973. The political arena was not the only place in which pro-life physicians spoke out for life. According to Dyer, these physicians also worked to inform women that life begins at conception and to persuade them to continue their pregnancies. According to Dyer, many women who intended to terminate their pregnancies chose life because of the work of Dr. Storer and his followers.
Dr. Frederick Dyer has also written a biography of Horatio Storer, titled Champion of Women and the Unborn: Horatio Robinson Storer, M.D. In addition to fighting for the lives of unborn children, Storer was one of the first people to specialize in treating women’s diseases and had a great impact on the field of gynecology. This biography provides many details about Storer’s life from his early childhood to his medical career to his struggles with illness late in life.
Many currently practicing physicians and healthcare professionals follow in the footsteps of Dr. Storer and his colleagues- they believe that elective abortion is the unjust ending of a human being’s life. Any health care reform should respect the consciences of pro-life healthcare professionals and not force them to perform or refer for procedures to which they are morally opposed.
In this video clip from a town hall meeting, a constituent asks Representative Zoe Lofgren to explain why the proposed health care reform plan will cover abortions when 90% of them are elective and not medically necessary. In her response, Represenative Lofgren admits that the health care reform plan will cover abortions and declares her belief that this is the way it should be. Interestingly, the crowd responded negatively to Lofgren's answer, even though she represents a highly Democratic district in which 69% of the voters supported Obama last November. (HT: Hot Air)
Today Rasmussen Reports published polling data that show that support for the proposed health care reform legislation is continuing to wane and is now at its lowest point to-date! Only 43% of U.S. voters support the legislation while 52% oppose it. These numbers show decreased approval for the health care reform plan compared to the end of June 2009 when 50% supported the health care reform legislation and 45% percent opposed it.
Rasmussen Reports also found that those with strong opinions about the health care debate are more likely to oppose the health care reform legislation than support it. While 44% of U.S. voters strongly oppose the health care reform plan, only 26% strongly support it.
In addition, on Tuesday Rasmussen reported that a plurality (41%) of U.S. voters have a favorable impression of people who protest the current health care reform legislation at town hall meetings held by members of Congress and only 35% of U.S. voters have an unfavorable opinion of the protesters. Clearly, Americans want their opinions on health care reform to be heard. If your members of Congress are holding town hall meetings near you, please attend and be a voice for life. We encourage you to respectfully ask your member of Congress questions such as, “Will you oppose any healthcare bill that uses tax dollars to pay for abortions?” If you would like more sample questions pertaining to life to ask your member of Congress, please see this Stop the Abortion Mandate August Recess Action Toolkit.
Recently former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin commented on the healthcare reform legislation making its way through Congress. In her statement, she makes it clear that she is very concerned that the current healthcare legislation would lead to the rationing of healthcare and a devaluation human life. Palin said,
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.
Palin’s statement serves as a good reminder of what it really means to be pro-life. As pro-lifers, we believe in the inherent value of every human life. Period. We do not believe that people are only valuable if they are useful, meet a certain standard of intelligence, or are in a position to significantly contribute to society. We acknowledge that there are differences among people, of couse. People vary in height, weight, intelligence, beauty, level of ambition, personality, and countless other ways. However, we don’t believe any of these differences has a bearing on how valuable a peron’s life is. Physically fit people and disabled people are equally valuable; the mentally challenged and the precocious are equally valuable. Pro-lifers believe in the value and dignity of every human life, born and unborn. Since all people are equally human, everyone- regardless of other characteristics- has an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Based on statements that President Obama and people involved in his administration have made, we have good reason to believe that under the proposed healthcare reform people will not be treated equally, but will be discriminated against based on their perceived worth to society. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obama health care advisor and brother to Rahm Emanuel, made the following statement in the Hastings Center Report, volume 26, no. 6, page 13:
…services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
Unlike the pro-life community, Dr. Emanuel seems to think that people are valuable based on their utility to society, not simply by virtue of their humanity. For more on utilitarianism and rationing healthcare, see this recent blog post.
Sarah Palin ended her statement on the proposed healthcare reform by saying this:
We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.
Like Palin said, it is time to take a stand for Life and make our voices heard. Since Congress will not be passing healthcare reform until after they come back from their recess this September, we have been given an opportunity to voice our concerns about government-run healthcare to our senators and representatives. Contact your senators and representative about healthcare reform today!
An article by the Associated Press confirms what the pro-life community has been saying all along and what President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have been trying to hide: the healthcare reform bills in the House and Senate would allow abortions to be publicly funded. Federal funds are currently used only to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is endangered. In a strong departure from the current status of the federal funding of abortion, the proposed health care bills could use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions for any reason.
Many people seem to think that if the healthcare reform bill is silent on abortion, the status quo will prevail and federal funds will only be used for abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. This is wrong, as the Associated Press points out:
Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.
Let us be clear: not mentioning abortion in the health care reform bills is a victory for the pro-abortion side as it would enable the plans to provide “unrestricted coverage” for abortion using taxpayer dollars. We must fight for an explicit ban on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions. Contact your Senator today!
A fake “compromise” amendment that adds federal funding of abortion to the House version of the health-care overhaul bill was approved late Thursday night.
The amendment was offered in the House Energy & Commerce Committee by Rep. Lois Capps (D-California), who claimed it was a “compromise” between pro-life advocates and abortion supporters.
The amendment explicitly allows the Health & Human Services Department, whose secretary is the pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius, to include abortion in the services paid for by the proposed “public option” insurance program, which would be run by the federal government and funded by tax dollars.
The amendment would become law only if the Hyde Amendment, a law specifically prohibiting federal tax dollars from funding abortions, is reversed. This amendment was offered in 1976 by the late Congressman Henry Hyde, one of the most active and vocal pro-lifers to ever serve in Congress. However, his amendment is in great danger of being reversed by the current Congress, which has a pro-abortion majority.
The Capps amendment was passed 30-28, despite opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. (To see a record of the vote, click here.)
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) blasted the amendment, saying it “[makes] abortion services not only available, but ‘cheaper and more affordable’? That's not a principle I can endorse.”
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said the Capps amendment was “the latest refinement of the phony ‘common ground’ campaign.” NRLC’s records show that Capps has cast 74 votes to promote abortion or block restrictions on abortion during her 11-year congressional career.
Over 100,000 letters have already been sent to Congress urging our representatives to keep abortion out of any health care reform effort. Have you sent yours?
Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) has introduced a pro-life amendment to defund Planned Parenthood.Last night, the House Rules Committee decided to allow the entire House of Representatives to have an up or down vote on Pence’s amendment.Congressman Pence’s amendment is very short and succinct.This is the amendment:
“None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under title X of the Public Health Services Act.”
The vote on Pence’s amendment will take place today.This morning Congressman Pence spoke on the House floor about his amendment.Pence said, “The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X.”See Congressman Pence’s speech below.
If this amendment passes it would cut off federal funding for the largest abortion provider in the United States!Here is what you can do to encourage your Representative to vote “yes” on the Pence amendment.
3. Tell the staff member who answers the phone that you are a constituent. You want your Representative to vote YES on the Pence Amendment to De-Fund Planned Parenthood, because you do not want your tax dollars funding the largest abortion provider in America.
Thanks for your action on this item!We will keep you updated about the results of the vote on the amendment.
The Susan B. Anthony List is dedicated to advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process.
Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in politics.
The debate about the current health care reform legislation in Congress has received a lot of media attention and is an important issue: it will serve to define the relationship between health care and abortion. Is abortion just another medical procedure morally equivalent to having one’s tonsils taken out? Many physicians in the 19th century did not think so. In fact, a large number of them worked diligently to curtail abortion. 
Recently former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin commented 
An 
