California ProLife Blog

March 3, 2010

Of the remaining issues with the potential to bring down the entire health overhaul effort, the one that lawmakers fear most is abortion.

Abortion is such a politically hazardous issue that sponsors of both the House and Senate health bills have said their object was to maintain the status quo. “It is not the intention of this bill to, as the speaker has said, to change the policy that has been in place for three decades,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said on Tuesday. Hoyer was referring to what is known as the Hyde Amendment. It has barred federal funds from being used to pay for abortions since 1977.

But keeping the health bills abortion-neutral has proved impossible. And now the abortion language in the Senate-passed bill in particular could threaten the strategy Democratic leaders hope to use to get a final measure to President Obama’s desk for a signature.

The bill the House passed in November barred abortion funding in programs directly funded by the federal government. But it also banned it in private insurance plans that cover abortion if those plans are federally subsidized.

Abortion-rights groups say the problem with the House bill is that it would roll back coverage for abortion many women now have in private insurance.

“Anyone receiving a subsidy for their premium from the government would not be allowed to choose a plan that includes abortion, and that would apply to about 85 percent of people participating in the exchange,” said Jessica Arons, director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. The exchange is the new insurance marketplace the bills would create.

The bill passed by the Senate in December, however, doesn’t go quite as far. But it’s even more confusing. It, too, would bar most direct federal funding of abortion. But it would let private plans cover abortions — if people are willing to write a separate check each month for that coverage. Arons says that’s something abortion-rights groups find really distasteful.

“I think that some of the language is not just intended to wall off public money from paying for abortion services, it actually is intended to stigmatize abortion and treat it as something other than health care, and discourage people from choosing health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage,” she said.

But while abortion-rights groups may not like the Senate bill, anti-abortion groups downright hate it. “In total, the Senate bill is the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation ever to reach the floor of the House of Representatives,” said Douglas Johnson, federal legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “The so-called abortion limits that are in the Senate bill are all very narrow, loophole ridden, or booby-trapped to expire,” he said.

He cites as an example a last-minute addition to the bill of $7 billion for community health centers, “from which abortions could be paid with no restriction.”

Arons says that’s not the case. “It’s a boogeyman. No one is intending to use public money from the bill to fund abortion services.”

Still, National Right to Life’s opinion on the bill counts, because it scores votes as being anti-abortion or not. And Johnson has made it clear how his group will score this vote. “No member of the House of Representatives who is pro-life or who wishes to have a record against federal funding of abortion could possibly vote for the Senate bill.”

That raises a big red flag for Democratic leaders in both houses. That’s because the way they are hoping to finish work on their health overhaul is for the House to pass the Senate’s bill — abortion language and all. Then they plan to pass a second bill that will incorporate a number of compromises between the House and Senate. For that, they’ll use the so-called budget reconciliation process that only requires 51 Senate votes.

But as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged Tuesday, those compromises probably won’t include a change in abortion language. “In order to be in part of the budget bill, it has to be central to the budget. That’s the rule. And it’s a very strict rule,” she said.

Which means anti-abortion House Democrats who originally voted for the House health bill will likely face this choice: Vote for a Senate bill that’s more lenient on abortion or vote against health overhaul. And it will make it that much harder for House leaders to get the majority they need to pass the bill.

How many times have you heard that abortion should be safe and legal? It is one of the most common misconceptions in the abortion debate. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it safe.

Last August, so-called Dr. Andrew Rutland performed an abortion on Ying Chen in the dingy backroom of an acupuncture clinic. This legal back alley abortion resulted in her death.

He was not to perform any more abortions. Recently, a sting by the Medical board found that he was still plying his deadly trade. A judge let him of the hook. Rutland lost his license for five years over the death of two infants. The state gave him his license back and more babies and at least one mother have been killed.

Abortion maybe legal, but clearly isn’t safe.

Isn’t it nice how “superior people” would like other people dead? You didn’t think the Culture of Death was a mere metaphor, did you? These folks are serious.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6999873.ece

January 26, 2010 -

National Right to Life and other credible sources are reporting that Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are coalescing on a strategy to pass Obamacare — not a watered-down version but the whole package.

Here is how it would work:
1. House (as members hold their noses) passes pro-abortion Senate version of Obamacare with no amendments.

2. President Obama signs Obamacare into law.

3.  52 Senators agree ahead of time to changes demanded by House member.

4. Senate comes up with a new bill which includes the “fixes” demanded by House members.

5.  Reid brings the new bill up under “reconciliation” requiring only 51 votes, not the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

6. The 52 Senators who pledged ahead of time to make these changes vote for the bill.

7. House approves the new bill, President signs it into lawIt is a subversion of the normal process and will make Americans very, very angry but leaders appear ready to try this as a last ditch effort to foist Obamacare on the country.
Action is needed immediately to contact House members and urge them to vote against the pro-abortion Senate version of Obamacare. Don’t bother to contact Senators at this time.
Take action immediately by going to http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/

The majority of Americans are pro-life. The question is what are we going to do about it? I’ll tell you what… Hold Lawmakers Accountable!

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/majority-of-americans-and-nearly-6-in-10-young-adults-view-abortion-as-morally-wrong-82304862.html

By exploiting the emotions of the vulnerable, and the sympathies of the uninformed, society is on its way to the regulated killing the ‘imperfect,’ ‘who are going to die anyways.’ These, as we are regularly told, are those who, ‘cost us the most money’ and ‘are a burden to the healthcare system.’

Remember, Healthcare Reform is NOT designed to give more care to those who actually need it, because that is ‘costly.’ The goal of healthcare reform is to control costs. Killing the depressed is a cost-saver.

- Brian Johnston, Executive Director California ProLife Council

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-31-Montana-suicide_N.htm

President Obama and Nancy Pelosi hold the Canadian health care system up as a prototype for the United States. This video, produced by the Reason Foundation, the story of a Canadian women who waited three years for a hip replacement and finally went to the United States to get the care she needed. If the government takes over, Americans will be in the waiting room for years not hours.

A True Tale of Canadian Health Care: Why some patients need to go to the U.S. for surgery

“Learning through Killing”

The Dutch are the post-War leaders in the concept of intentionally killing those who are perceived to be, ‘lacking a quality life.’ While practitioners tend to hide behind the notion that one must ask, the government itself has chronicled many acts of unrequested euthanasia.

But instead of bringing a “Brave New World” of medical freedom and vibrant living it has created medical madness and confusion. Fear and abandonment are its fruit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234295/Now-Dutch-turn-legalised-mercy-killing.html

While the abortion provisions of ObamaCare have gotten the most
attention, we must remember his express intent – “To extend healthcare
to all” and simultaneously “cut costs.” What does that mean? RATIONING.
Read more here: http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release112409.html