/PRNewswire/ -- At a meeting today in the nation's capital of a federal advisory committee on the new health care law, Family Research Council (FRC) expressed its strong opposition to designating abortion as a means of pregnancy-prevention. The Institute of Medicine Committee on Preventive Services for Women is hearing comments about regulatory mandates for women's preventive services under Obamacare.
Additionally, FRC sent a letter today to U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius encouraging HHS to not recommend the inclusion of abortion or contraceptive drugs as a mandated service that all health plans would be required to cover at no cost to patients. The letter states that to do so would violate the principles of conscience rights laws.
Jeanne Monahan , FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, made the following comments after addressing the second meeting for the Committee:
"The committee should not recommend the inclusion of abortion as a means of preventing pregnancy. FRC rejects any suggestion that 'abortion is healthcare' or that pregnancy is a disease. Including abortion, whether chemical or surgical, as a mandated, free-of-charge preventive care service would further expand abortion in the health care law and undermine the conscience rights of many in the health care profession.
"Additionally, several drugs have been approved by the FDA to be legally categorized as 'emergency contraceptives,' but can destroy a preborn baby before or after implantation. Any mandates including drugs such as ella would expand taxpayer funding for abortion. Inclusion of contraceptives also undermines conscience protections that President Obama promised would be maintained.
"Earlier today, we sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius urging HHS not to mandate that abortion or contraceptives be covered free of charge under the new health care law. If the IOM and HHS recommend these mandates, the conscience rights of thousands of Americans will be violated, including issuers of plans, providers who contract with such plans, and Americans who will pay for the cost of these services. The IOM should focus on items and services that prevent actual diseases, and not include controversial services just to placate the abortion industry," concluded Monahan.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
FRC: Increase in Abortion Rate Underscores Need to Get U.S. Taxpayers Out of Abortion Business, Enact Pro-Life Protections
/PRNewswire -- A new report released this morning by the Guttmacher Institute finds an abortion rate increase of 1 percent, to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age in 2008.
Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council's Director for the Center of Human Dignity, made the following comments:
"The nation's abortion rate has declined for many years because of the tireless work of and growth of pregnancy resource centers, pro-life educational campaigns, and the enactment of state laws such as parental notification and informed consent. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans now describe themselves as pro-life, and are overwhelmingly opposed to their hard earned dollars going to pay for abortions.
"However, this report indicates that much work remains to be done in Congress and in state legislatures to protect mothers and their unborn children.
"In its 2008-2009 annual report, the country's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, reported that it took home $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during that time period -- a $13.6 million increase from the prior year -- and performed an unprecedented 324,800 abortions in the same time frame. In other words, abortionists have an overabundance of funds. Claims made by Guttmacher that a slight increase in abortion somehow warrants fewer restrictions on late-term abortions or an increase in restrictions on peaceful protests is absurd. How can they say abortion rates aren't high enough?
"Moreover, the last Congress approved abortion funding in the health care law and funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. Funding abortion will only increase, not decrease the abortion rate. This is why we urge the new Congress to approve newly introduced legislation by U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) called the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,' which would wipe the slate clean of government projects that force Americans to pay for abortions and abortion coverage.
"Several states have enacted legislation to opt out of abortion funding as part of health care reform. Women have a right to know that their unborn babies are children which is why we are working with state legislators to pass ultrasound bills such as the law recently enacted by Louisiana," concluded Monahan.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council's Director for the Center of Human Dignity, made the following comments:
"The nation's abortion rate has declined for many years because of the tireless work of and growth of pregnancy resource centers, pro-life educational campaigns, and the enactment of state laws such as parental notification and informed consent. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans now describe themselves as pro-life, and are overwhelmingly opposed to their hard earned dollars going to pay for abortions.
"However, this report indicates that much work remains to be done in Congress and in state legislatures to protect mothers and their unborn children.
"In its 2008-2009 annual report, the country's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, reported that it took home $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during that time period -- a $13.6 million increase from the prior year -- and performed an unprecedented 324,800 abortions in the same time frame. In other words, abortionists have an overabundance of funds. Claims made by Guttmacher that a slight increase in abortion somehow warrants fewer restrictions on late-term abortions or an increase in restrictions on peaceful protests is absurd. How can they say abortion rates aren't high enough?
"Moreover, the last Congress approved abortion funding in the health care law and funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. Funding abortion will only increase, not decrease the abortion rate. This is why we urge the new Congress to approve newly introduced legislation by U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) called the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,' which would wipe the slate clean of government projects that force Americans to pay for abortions and abortion coverage.
"Several states have enacted legislation to opt out of abortion funding as part of health care reform. Women have a right to know that their unborn babies are children which is why we are working with state legislators to pass ultrasound bills such as the law recently enacted by Louisiana," concluded Monahan.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Friday, August 13, 2010
FRC: FDA Approves New Abortion Drug, but Deceivingly Labels Ella as 'Emergency Contraceptive'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Ella, a drug that can cause abortions but is misleadingly labeled as a more effective "Emergency Contraceptive."
Jeanne Monahan, Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, had the following to say:
"The FDA opted against including the critical fact that Ella can cause an abortion on a baby already implanted in its mother's womb in the drug labeling information. This decision flies in the face of the Obama Administration's promise to transparency and a commitment to science. The difference between preventing and destroying life is enormous, and women have the right to know how this drug will act on their bodies and on their babies.
"Since Ella is chemically similar to RU-486 (which has been the cause of at least six deaths reported to the FDA in less than six years) it is likely that the serious health concerns for women will be similar. The FDA has very little knowledge about how this drug will impact women's health and for that reason alone should do more research before approval.
"In approving Ella, the FDA also ignored concerns raised in early August by ninety-one members of Congress, including fourteen Democrats. In a letter to the FDA Commissioner, these members requested that the FDA postpone approval of Ella until they could prove it did not cause abortions, among other conditions. Additionally, approval of Ella raises concerns about taxpayer funding of abortions, since currently the U.S. Government will pay for emergency contraception, but not abortion pills.
"The FDA advisory panel largely ignored important questions, including impacts on women's health and the abortifacient capacity of Ella. The FDA and the Obama Administration now follow suit. By approving this drug quietly on a Friday afternoon when most of Washington was on vacation, the Obama Administration and the FDA once again placed politics above science, women's health and informed consent.
"FRC and other pro-life leaders promise to do everything possible to educate the public about the truth of Ella."
Jeanne Monahan, Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, had the following to say:
"The FDA opted against including the critical fact that Ella can cause an abortion on a baby already implanted in its mother's womb in the drug labeling information. This decision flies in the face of the Obama Administration's promise to transparency and a commitment to science. The difference between preventing and destroying life is enormous, and women have the right to know how this drug will act on their bodies and on their babies.
"Since Ella is chemically similar to RU-486 (which has been the cause of at least six deaths reported to the FDA in less than six years) it is likely that the serious health concerns for women will be similar. The FDA has very little knowledge about how this drug will impact women's health and for that reason alone should do more research before approval.
"In approving Ella, the FDA also ignored concerns raised in early August by ninety-one members of Congress, including fourteen Democrats. In a letter to the FDA Commissioner, these members requested that the FDA postpone approval of Ella until they could prove it did not cause abortions, among other conditions. Additionally, approval of Ella raises concerns about taxpayer funding of abortions, since currently the U.S. Government will pay for emergency contraception, but not abortion pills.
"The FDA advisory panel largely ignored important questions, including impacts on women's health and the abortifacient capacity of Ella. The FDA and the Obama Administration now follow suit. By approving this drug quietly on a Friday afternoon when most of Washington was on vacation, the Obama Administration and the FDA once again placed politics above science, women's health and informed consent.
"FRC and other pro-life leaders promise to do everything possible to educate the public about the truth of Ella."
Thursday, August 5, 2010
FRC Praises Senator Coburn's Senate Companion Bill to Remove Abortion from Obama Health Care Law
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council praised legislation introduced today by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would apply the Hyde amendment abortion funding restriction to the new health care law which currently can fund and subsidize abortion.
The new health care law sends tax credits to pay for plans with abortion, thereby bypassing the annual Hyde amendment, and directly spends federal dollars on programs without any abortion funding restrictions. The "Excluding Abortion Coverage from Health Reform Act of 2010" would, like U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts's measure in the House of Representatives, restore the historic ban on federal funding of abortion in health care.
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"President Obama's new health care law destroys the traditional provision against federal funding for abortion. I applaud Sen. Coburn for introducing legislation that would put in place an abortion funding ban within the President's new health care plan. The American people, regardless of their view of the underlying issue, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. Sen. Coburn's bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the longtime prohibition against government funding of elective abortion.
"On Tuesday, Missouri voters stated emphatically their opposition to the individual mandate within the health care law. The outrage of voters spread even further after the Health and Human Services Department recently agreed to fund abortion in several state high risk insurance pool programs. HHS reversed course only after its approval of abortion funding was exposed, demonstrating that current law does not prevent abortion funding.
"Passing Sen. Coburn's bill is the only way to restore the status quo on abortion funding in health care. If the Obama Administration is honest when it says it will not fund abortion, then the Coburn/Pitts measures should be passed with resounding support," concluded Perkins.
The new health care law sends tax credits to pay for plans with abortion, thereby bypassing the annual Hyde amendment, and directly spends federal dollars on programs without any abortion funding restrictions. The "Excluding Abortion Coverage from Health Reform Act of 2010" would, like U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts's measure in the House of Representatives, restore the historic ban on federal funding of abortion in health care.
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"President Obama's new health care law destroys the traditional provision against federal funding for abortion. I applaud Sen. Coburn for introducing legislation that would put in place an abortion funding ban within the President's new health care plan. The American people, regardless of their view of the underlying issue, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. Sen. Coburn's bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the longtime prohibition against government funding of elective abortion.
"On Tuesday, Missouri voters stated emphatically their opposition to the individual mandate within the health care law. The outrage of voters spread even further after the Health and Human Services Department recently agreed to fund abortion in several state high risk insurance pool programs. HHS reversed course only after its approval of abortion funding was exposed, demonstrating that current law does not prevent abortion funding.
"Passing Sen. Coburn's bill is the only way to restore the status quo on abortion funding in health care. If the Obama Administration is honest when it says it will not fund abortion, then the Coburn/Pitts measures should be passed with resounding support," concluded Perkins.
Friday, April 9, 2010
FRC Action Statement on Congressman Bart Stupak's Retirement
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments following the retirement announcement of Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.):
"For two decades Rep. Bart Stupak stood firm for the pro-life cause. It is a shame that he will leave Congress remembered more for his vote on the Obama health care bill, the largest abortion promoting piece of legislation in the last 30 years.
"Rep. Stupak's fall lies directly at the feet of the Democratic congressional leadership and President Obama, who pushed their support of government funding of abortion over the principles of pro-life Members of their own party. Although Rep. Stupak certainly is responsible for the decision he made to endorse the Obama plan, the severe demands his President and Party placed on him were untoward and unremitting.
"FRC Action will continue to work with pro-life Members of both parties to protect the mothers and unborn children targeted by President Obama's health care overhaul."
"For two decades Rep. Bart Stupak stood firm for the pro-life cause. It is a shame that he will leave Congress remembered more for his vote on the Obama health care bill, the largest abortion promoting piece of legislation in the last 30 years.
"Rep. Stupak's fall lies directly at the feet of the Democratic congressional leadership and President Obama, who pushed their support of government funding of abortion over the principles of pro-life Members of their own party. Although Rep. Stupak certainly is responsible for the decision he made to endorse the Obama plan, the severe demands his President and Party placed on him were untoward and unremitting.
"FRC Action will continue to work with pro-life Members of both parties to protect the mothers and unborn children targeted by President Obama's health care overhaul."
Friday, February 5, 2010
FRC Statement on New Policy Requiring Military Bases to Carry 'Morning After' Pill
/PRNewswire/ -- The Family Research Council today criticized a decision by the Obama Administration to require military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B.'
Jeanne Monahan, FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, released the following statement:
"Family Research Council opposes requiring military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B,' because the drug can prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus and thereby destroy a human life. We can all agree that there is a huge difference between preventing and destroying human life. And women in uniform deserve to know the truth about their medications.
"In the last year we have witnessed the Obama Administration move from the status quo of abortion as legal and available in health care plans to aggressively promoting U.S. government funded abortions. In the same way, the fact that Plan B is optional for military facilities is not sufficient for the Obama Administration, so now military facilities will be compelled to carry and disseminate Plan B.
"Moreover, a requirement to carry this drug would be a violation of the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections to providing it, not to mention the majority of American taxpayers supporting military operations. Taxpayers should not be required to pay for military medical personnel to carry Plan B anywhere in the world.
"Recently the FDA changed its approval of Plan B from a prescription drug to an over-the-counter drug for women ages 17 and up. This change was made despite the fact that Plan B is composed essentially of high doses of regular contraceptive drugs (which still require a doctor's prescription). However, because extensive testing for those under the age of 17 has not taken place, the drug can only be obtained by prescription for girls 16 and under. Forcing military professionals to carry over-the-counter Plan B will make it more difficult to enforce age requirements for a drug not widely tested on young girls.
"Finally, the requirement to carry Plan B on military bases doesn't include a parental notification provision in cases in which a minor obtains Plan B by prescription. This new policy undermines the right of parents to properly care for their daughters' physical well-being. In a society that requires teachers to send students to the nurse for a band-aid, the Administration's approach on something profoundly more important than a paper cut defies common sense."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Jeanne Monahan, FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, released the following statement:
"Family Research Council opposes requiring military bases worldwide to carry Levonorgestrel, or 'Plan B,' because the drug can prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus and thereby destroy a human life. We can all agree that there is a huge difference between preventing and destroying human life. And women in uniform deserve to know the truth about their medications.
"In the last year we have witnessed the Obama Administration move from the status quo of abortion as legal and available in health care plans to aggressively promoting U.S. government funded abortions. In the same way, the fact that Plan B is optional for military facilities is not sufficient for the Obama Administration, so now military facilities will be compelled to carry and disseminate Plan B.
"Moreover, a requirement to carry this drug would be a violation of the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections to providing it, not to mention the majority of American taxpayers supporting military operations. Taxpayers should not be required to pay for military medical personnel to carry Plan B anywhere in the world.
"Recently the FDA changed its approval of Plan B from a prescription drug to an over-the-counter drug for women ages 17 and up. This change was made despite the fact that Plan B is composed essentially of high doses of regular contraceptive drugs (which still require a doctor's prescription). However, because extensive testing for those under the age of 17 has not taken place, the drug can only be obtained by prescription for girls 16 and under. Forcing military professionals to carry over-the-counter Plan B will make it more difficult to enforce age requirements for a drug not widely tested on young girls.
"Finally, the requirement to carry Plan B on military bases doesn't include a parental notification provision in cases in which a minor obtains Plan B by prescription. This new policy undermines the right of parents to properly care for their daughters' physical well-being. In a society that requires teachers to send students to the nurse for a band-aid, the Administration's approach on something profoundly more important than a paper cut defies common sense."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, December 24, 2009
FRC Statement on the Christmas Eve Passage of the Health Care 'Reform' Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- This morning the United States Senate voted 60-39 in favor of final passage of HR 3590, the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Today's Christmas Eve vote may signal the end of the debate in the Senate, but it's far from the end of the debate at large. Since Senator Reid's bad bill is substantially different from the House's bad bill, the lower chamber will have to vote on the plan again. The Senate bill's massive funding for elective abortions and the construction of abortion facilities are among the most radical differences. On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview that the Senate health care bill will force 'everybody' in the exchange to pay an abortion premium. The so-called Nelson 'compromise' ensures that everyone will pay for abortion--no matter how the funds are divided up.
"According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Americans -- by a huge three to one margin -- are overwhelmingly opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Seventy-two percent of the country is now firmly on the side of Congressman Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) solution to ban the government's financial involvement in the deadly procedure. House and Senate conferees would do well to heed that warning when they come together to iron out their differences with the final bill, else this bill could collapse because of it.
"Disagreement over abortion funding is one of the many reasons this fight is far from over. Both House and Senate versions of the bill are seriously flawed. Both bills still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Additionally, the bills would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Today's Christmas Eve vote may signal the end of the debate in the Senate, but it's far from the end of the debate at large. Since Senator Reid's bad bill is substantially different from the House's bad bill, the lower chamber will have to vote on the plan again. The Senate bill's massive funding for elective abortions and the construction of abortion facilities are among the most radical differences. On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview that the Senate health care bill will force 'everybody' in the exchange to pay an abortion premium. The so-called Nelson 'compromise' ensures that everyone will pay for abortion--no matter how the funds are divided up.
"According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Americans -- by a huge three to one margin -- are overwhelmingly opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Seventy-two percent of the country is now firmly on the side of Congressman Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) solution to ban the government's financial involvement in the deadly procedure. House and Senate conferees would do well to heed that warning when they come together to iron out their differences with the final bill, else this bill could collapse because of it.
"Disagreement over abortion funding is one of the many reasons this fight is far from over. Both House and Senate versions of the bill are seriously flawed. Both bills still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Additionally, the bills would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Americans United for Life Offers Urgent Legal Briefing for Senator Nelson
/PRNewswire/ -- At 4:45 pm today on the floor of the United States Senate, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska made the following statement:
"...even though they [pro-life advocates] cannot constructively point out how it doesn't prohibit the use of federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. They just didn't like the language..."
As a result of this statement, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, directed her legal team to contact the Senator's office and offer to provide an urgent briefing to clarify the facts about abortion provisions in the bill. In addition, she has issued this statement:
"Senator Nelson has a strong, consistent pro-life voting record, and his vote for the manager's amendment was a surprise to all of us. We have contacted his office and have offered to send our top legal team to fully brief him as soon as he has an opportunity. I believe it is absolutely critical that Senator Nelson has all of the facts before he casts his final vote on Christmas Eve. The facts demonstrate that this bill will create the largest single expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and impose a first-ever abortion tax on the American people."
FOR THE FACTS, CLICK BELOW
http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/20/the-abortion-tax-and-other-problems-in-sena tor-reid%E2%80%99s-amendment/
http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/19/legal-analysis-of-life-concerns-in-managers -amendment/
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"...even though they [pro-life advocates] cannot constructively point out how it doesn't prohibit the use of federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. They just didn't like the language..."
As a result of this statement, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, directed her legal team to contact the Senator's office and offer to provide an urgent briefing to clarify the facts about abortion provisions in the bill. In addition, she has issued this statement:
"Senator Nelson has a strong, consistent pro-life voting record, and his vote for the manager's amendment was a surprise to all of us. We have contacted his office and have offered to send our top legal team to fully brief him as soon as he has an opportunity. I believe it is absolutely critical that Senator Nelson has all of the facts before he casts his final vote on Christmas Eve. The facts demonstrate that this bill will create the largest single expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and impose a first-ever abortion tax on the American people."
FOR THE FACTS, CLICK BELOW
http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/20/the-abortion-tax-and-other-problems-in-sena tor-reid%E2%80%99s-amendment/
http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/19/legal-analysis-of-life-concerns-in-managers -amendment/
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Americans United for Life Action: 'Senate Health Care Bill Absolutely Fails To Meet Abortion and Life Protections.'
/PRNewswire/ -- Official statement of Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Charmaine Yoest:
"Majority Leader Reid's amendment to the Senate health care bill absolutely fails to meet abortion and life protections that exist in current federal law and policy. It does not prevent federal funding of plans that include abortion coverage, it does not adequately protect health care providers who choose to exercise their rights of conscience, and it does not prevent government involvement in assisted suicide. A vast majority of the American people are opposed to these policies and will make themselves heard loudly over the coming days."
- Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life Action
Americans United for Life's Legal Analysis of Life Concerns in Manager's Amendment:
From a preliminary analysis of Majority Leader Reid's manager's amendment, it is clear that it is unacceptable and would be a radical departure from existing law and policy.
First, the amendment provides inadequate conscience protection, because it does not prohibit any government entity or program (federal, state, or local) from discriminating against health care providers that do not want to participate in abortions.
Second, the amendment fails to address our concerns that under the Mikulski amendment (already accepted in the underlying bill), the Health Resources and services Administration (HRSA) has the power to require private insurance plans to include abortion coverage under the guise of "preventive care."
Third, the amendment allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive government subsidies, which is a radical departure from existing law (which is not allowed under the Hyde Amendment and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program).
Fourth, while the amendment allows states to "opt out" of allowing private plans that include abortion coverage to participate in their exchanges, this "opt out" provision makes abortion coverage normative. In other words, states will have to act to prevent subsidies from going to plans that cover abortions in their state, turning on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion.
Fifth, the amendment fails to ensure federal funds will not go to assisted suicide and fails to address concerns that Comparative Effectiveness Research will lead to rationing of essential medical care.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Majority Leader Reid's amendment to the Senate health care bill absolutely fails to meet abortion and life protections that exist in current federal law and policy. It does not prevent federal funding of plans that include abortion coverage, it does not adequately protect health care providers who choose to exercise their rights of conscience, and it does not prevent government involvement in assisted suicide. A vast majority of the American people are opposed to these policies and will make themselves heard loudly over the coming days."
- Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life Action
Americans United for Life's Legal Analysis of Life Concerns in Manager's Amendment:
From a preliminary analysis of Majority Leader Reid's manager's amendment, it is clear that it is unacceptable and would be a radical departure from existing law and policy.
First, the amendment provides inadequate conscience protection, because it does not prohibit any government entity or program (federal, state, or local) from discriminating against health care providers that do not want to participate in abortions.
Second, the amendment fails to address our concerns that under the Mikulski amendment (already accepted in the underlying bill), the Health Resources and services Administration (HRSA) has the power to require private insurance plans to include abortion coverage under the guise of "preventive care."
Third, the amendment allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive government subsidies, which is a radical departure from existing law (which is not allowed under the Hyde Amendment and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program).
Fourth, while the amendment allows states to "opt out" of allowing private plans that include abortion coverage to participate in their exchanges, this "opt out" provision makes abortion coverage normative. In other words, states will have to act to prevent subsidies from going to plans that cover abortions in their state, turning on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion.
Fifth, the amendment fails to ensure federal funds will not go to assisted suicide and fails to address concerns that Comparative Effectiveness Research will lead to rationing of essential medical care.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
FRC Rejects Phony Abortion 'Compromise'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) released his long awaited "manager's amendment" with new language dealing with the abortion issue. The new language is being trumpeted as including an opt-out provision that actually makes the opt-out provision in the original bill worse by requiring the state to either cover all abortions or opt out of all abortions. This will make it difficult for states that currently include exceptions for life, rape, and incest. This so-called "compromise" language makes it more likely that these states will cover all abortions. Moreover, there is no individual opt-out ensuring that everyone in the plans would pay for other people's abortions. In contrast to the Nelson-Hatch-Casey Amendment, this new language undermines the principles of the Hyde Amendment.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say about the legislation:
"The Senate health care bill will set up the federal government as being brokers for the abortion industry. No Senator or organization can call themselves pro-life if they support such language.
"This so-called 'compromise' includes the accounting gimmicks that we have seen previously proposed. The new language also does nothing to protect individual consciences. Every purchaser of insurance will be forced to pay for other people's abortions in a more direct manner than ever before.
"The replacement of the public option resembles the current health plan for federal employees, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), with one notable exception, the FEHBP excludes plans that cover abortions while Senator Reid's bill would mandate abortion coverage.
"There are many reasons to reject the overall bill, including the cost to future generations while doing nothing to actually reform our health care system. This bill would now require government funds to pay for plans that cover elective abortion which is a direct violation of the principles set forth over thirty years ago with the Hyde Amendment. It's now very clear that this abortion funding bill should be thrown into the trash heap of bad ideas and misplaced priorities.
"I ask Senators Ben Nelson (D-Nebr.) and Robert Casey (D-Penn.) to remember the promises they made to protect the most innocent among us and reject Senator Reid's bill by voting against any procedural motions on the legislation."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say about the legislation:
"The Senate health care bill will set up the federal government as being brokers for the abortion industry. No Senator or organization can call themselves pro-life if they support such language.
"This so-called 'compromise' includes the accounting gimmicks that we have seen previously proposed. The new language also does nothing to protect individual consciences. Every purchaser of insurance will be forced to pay for other people's abortions in a more direct manner than ever before.
"The replacement of the public option resembles the current health plan for federal employees, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), with one notable exception, the FEHBP excludes plans that cover abortions while Senator Reid's bill would mandate abortion coverage.
"There are many reasons to reject the overall bill, including the cost to future generations while doing nothing to actually reform our health care system. This bill would now require government funds to pay for plans that cover elective abortion which is a direct violation of the principles set forth over thirty years ago with the Hyde Amendment. It's now very clear that this abortion funding bill should be thrown into the trash heap of bad ideas and misplaced priorities.
"I ask Senators Ben Nelson (D-Nebr.) and Robert Casey (D-Penn.) to remember the promises they made to protect the most innocent among us and reject Senator Reid's bill by voting against any procedural motions on the legislation."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, December 18, 2009
'Abortion Compromise' Does Not Address Core Problem In Senate Health Bill, Says Cardinal DiNardo, Bishops' Pro-Life Chair
/PRNewswire/ -- Responding to reports of a new "compromise" proposal on abortion in the U.S. Senate's health care reform bill, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo today reaffirmed the position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that the legislation will be morally unacceptable "unless and until" it complies with longstanding current laws on abortion funding such as the Hyde amendment. Cardinal DiNardo is Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and Chairman of the Conference's Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
The Cardinal commented on efforts by Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) to improve the Senate bill's treatment of abortion.
"Senator Casey's good-faith effort to allow individuals to 'opt out' of abortion coverage actually underscores how radically the underlying Senate bill would change abortion policy. Excluding elective abortions from overall health plans is not a privilege that individuals should have to seek as the exception to the norm. In all other federal health programs, excluding abortion coverage is the norm. And numerous opinion polls show that the great majority of Americans do not want abortion coverage."
"I welcome Senator Casey's good-faith effort to improve this bill," said Cardinal DiNardo. "In particular he has sought to improve protection for conscience rights, and to include programs of support for pregnant women and adoptive parents that we favor in their own right. However, these improvements do not change the fundamental problem with the Senate bill: Despite repeated claims to the contrary, it does not comply with longstanding Hyde restrictions on federal funding of elective abortions and health plans that include them."
Cardinal DiNardo had written to the Senate on December 14, saying that "the Catholic bishops of the United States strongly support authentic reform of our ailing health care system." His letter cited "three moral criteria for reform: respect for life and conscience; affordability for the poor; and access to much-needed basic health care for immigrants," noting that so far the Senate bill "has fallen short of the example set by the House version of this legislation in each of these areas."
On abortion funding, the Cardinal urged the Senate to "incorporate into this bill the longstanding and widely supported policies of current law, acknowledged and reaffirmed by the Senate itself" when it approved the Consolidated Appropriations Act for the new fiscal year on December 13. This Act reaffirmed the Hyde amendment and other laws that exclude elective abortions from health plans receiving federal funds -- including the plans that cover the Senators themselves and all other federal employees. The Senate so far has failed to reflect this same policy in its health care bill as the House has done, he said [see www.usccb.org/healthcare/DiNardo_1214_letter.pdf].
Cardinal DiNardo said December 18: "We continue to oppose and urge others to oppose the Senate bill unless and until this fundamental failure is remedied. And whatever the immediate outcome in the Senate, we will continue to work for health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. As the bishops have said many times, 'providing affordable and accessible health care that clearly reflects these fundamental principles is a public good, moral imperative and urgent national priority.' In particular we will work vigorously to ensure that the substance of the House's provision on abortion funding is included in final legislation. A special debt of gratitude is owed to House and Senate members, especially Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who have placed their votes and reputation on the line to stand up for unborn children. Making this legislation consistent with longstanding federal law on abortion will not threaten needed authentic reform, but will help ensure its passage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Cardinal commented on efforts by Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) to improve the Senate bill's treatment of abortion.
"Senator Casey's good-faith effort to allow individuals to 'opt out' of abortion coverage actually underscores how radically the underlying Senate bill would change abortion policy. Excluding elective abortions from overall health plans is not a privilege that individuals should have to seek as the exception to the norm. In all other federal health programs, excluding abortion coverage is the norm. And numerous opinion polls show that the great majority of Americans do not want abortion coverage."
"I welcome Senator Casey's good-faith effort to improve this bill," said Cardinal DiNardo. "In particular he has sought to improve protection for conscience rights, and to include programs of support for pregnant women and adoptive parents that we favor in their own right. However, these improvements do not change the fundamental problem with the Senate bill: Despite repeated claims to the contrary, it does not comply with longstanding Hyde restrictions on federal funding of elective abortions and health plans that include them."
Cardinal DiNardo had written to the Senate on December 14, saying that "the Catholic bishops of the United States strongly support authentic reform of our ailing health care system." His letter cited "three moral criteria for reform: respect for life and conscience; affordability for the poor; and access to much-needed basic health care for immigrants," noting that so far the Senate bill "has fallen short of the example set by the House version of this legislation in each of these areas."
On abortion funding, the Cardinal urged the Senate to "incorporate into this bill the longstanding and widely supported policies of current law, acknowledged and reaffirmed by the Senate itself" when it approved the Consolidated Appropriations Act for the new fiscal year on December 13. This Act reaffirmed the Hyde amendment and other laws that exclude elective abortions from health plans receiving federal funds -- including the plans that cover the Senators themselves and all other federal employees. The Senate so far has failed to reflect this same policy in its health care bill as the House has done, he said [see www.usccb.org/healthcare/DiNardo_1214_letter.pdf].
Cardinal DiNardo said December 18: "We continue to oppose and urge others to oppose the Senate bill unless and until this fundamental failure is remedied. And whatever the immediate outcome in the Senate, we will continue to work for health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. As the bishops have said many times, 'providing affordable and accessible health care that clearly reflects these fundamental principles is a public good, moral imperative and urgent national priority.' In particular we will work vigorously to ensure that the substance of the House's provision on abortion funding is included in final legislation. A special debt of gratitude is owed to House and Senate members, especially Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who have placed their votes and reputation on the line to stand up for unborn children. Making this legislation consistent with longstanding federal law on abortion will not threaten needed authentic reform, but will help ensure its passage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Perkins: Senate Would Rather Mandate Abortion Funding Than Enact 'Health Care Reform'
/PRNewswire/ -- This evening, the Nelson-Hatch abortion anti-funding amendment to the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was "tabled" by a vote of 54-45, thus killing any hope to make the health care bill abortion neutral. The Nelson-Hatch amendment would have prevented government funding for elective abortion in the public option or subsidies for health plans in the government run exchange that cover elective abortion. Of all the concerns in the legislation, abortion is the one issue that the Democrats are afraid to have a straight up-or-down vote on.
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins responded with the following comments:
"In rejecting the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion senators have broken the three decade-long truce over government funding of abortion and have demonstrated they would rather mandate federal funding for abortion than enact comprehensive 'health care reform.'
"With the defeat of the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion groups have won an unfortunate victory in their quest for unhindered government funding for abortion-on-demand. Rather than maintain current policy to prevent government funding for abortions in this health care bill, senators voted to placate the abortion industry and, in some cases, a desperate allegiance to abortion as a central tenet of their public policy vision. The Senate health care bill would force American taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion-on-demand in both the public option and in private plans.
"We know that abortions increased when the government funded it in the 1970's before the Hyde amendment was passed. Even the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, says that abortions would increase by 25 percent if the government funds it.
"FRC Action urges every Senator who supported the Nelson-Hatch amendment to now oppose any vote to end debate on this abortion expansion bill," Perkins concluded.
In response to today's Senate vote, FRC Action will expand its grassroots campaign in opposition to the health care overhaul bill. Over the next eight weeks, FRC Action will call all household phones in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Louisiana to survey each household on provisions of the Senate health care bill. These include abortion funding, rationing, higher taxes, and government-run health care, or the public option. Additionally, FRC Action will be calling pro-life households in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Survey participants who express opposition to the so-called health care reform will be given contact information for their senators.
FRC will also launch a TV ad in Arkansas that will again point out that abortion funding remains in the Senate health care bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins responded with the following comments:
"In rejecting the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion senators have broken the three decade-long truce over government funding of abortion and have demonstrated they would rather mandate federal funding for abortion than enact comprehensive 'health care reform.'
"With the defeat of the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion groups have won an unfortunate victory in their quest for unhindered government funding for abortion-on-demand. Rather than maintain current policy to prevent government funding for abortions in this health care bill, senators voted to placate the abortion industry and, in some cases, a desperate allegiance to abortion as a central tenet of their public policy vision. The Senate health care bill would force American taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion-on-demand in both the public option and in private plans.
"We know that abortions increased when the government funded it in the 1970's before the Hyde amendment was passed. Even the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, says that abortions would increase by 25 percent if the government funds it.
"FRC Action urges every Senator who supported the Nelson-Hatch amendment to now oppose any vote to end debate on this abortion expansion bill," Perkins concluded.
In response to today's Senate vote, FRC Action will expand its grassroots campaign in opposition to the health care overhaul bill. Over the next eight weeks, FRC Action will call all household phones in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Louisiana to survey each household on provisions of the Senate health care bill. These include abortion funding, rationing, higher taxes, and government-run health care, or the public option. Additionally, FRC Action will be calling pro-life households in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Survey participants who express opposition to the so-called health care reform will be given contact information for their senators.
FRC will also launch a TV ad in Arkansas that will again point out that abortion funding remains in the Senate health care bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
AUL Action: Senate Health Bill Now Leads to Unprecedented Federal Abortion Funding
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, which would have maintained existing law by prohibiting both federal funding of abortion and government-mandated abortion coverage. Without the explicit ban on abortion funding, Americans United for Life Action will now oppose the final health care bill.
Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, "A vote to table the amendment is a vote against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. A majority of Senators effectively endorsed the abortion lobby's goal of mainstreaming abortion as health care."
The Senate health care reform bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill also requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
Dr. Yoest continued, "The Senate had the opportunity to follow the House's lead in ensuring that federal dollars are not used to pay for abortions. Instead, the Senate chose to reject the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment and continue down the road towards unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
Four major anti-life concerns in this health care bill:
1) Unprecedented abortion funding: The Senate bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
2) Rationing of care: The Senate health care reform bill contains provisions that could be used to deny or ration health care.
3) Lacks conscience protection: The Senate bill fails to prohibit government entities from discriminating against health care providers on the basis that they do not participate in abortions. The bill also explicitly provides that insurance plans in the exchange cannot refuse to contract with abortion providers on the basis that they provide abortions.
4) Abortion as "preventive care": The Milkulski amendment added on the Senate floor could mandate abortion coverage under the guise of preventive care. For the first time in history, the federal government could require private insurance companies to cover abortion.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, "A vote to table the amendment is a vote against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. A majority of Senators effectively endorsed the abortion lobby's goal of mainstreaming abortion as health care."
The Senate health care reform bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill also requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
Dr. Yoest continued, "The Senate had the opportunity to follow the House's lead in ensuring that federal dollars are not used to pay for abortions. Instead, the Senate chose to reject the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment and continue down the road towards unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
Four major anti-life concerns in this health care bill:
1) Unprecedented abortion funding: The Senate bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
2) Rationing of care: The Senate health care reform bill contains provisions that could be used to deny or ration health care.
3) Lacks conscience protection: The Senate bill fails to prohibit government entities from discriminating against health care providers on the basis that they do not participate in abortions. The bill also explicitly provides that insurance plans in the exchange cannot refuse to contract with abortion providers on the basis that they provide abortions.
4) Abortion as "preventive care": The Milkulski amendment added on the Senate floor could mandate abortion coverage under the guise of preventive care. For the first time in history, the federal government could require private insurance companies to cover abortion.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, October 29, 2009
AUL's Statement on New House Health Care Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- Statement by Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest:
"Just as Americans United for Life had expected, the new House health care bill unveiled this morning includes the Capps Amendment language added during the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up. This bill will explicitly allow federal funding of abortion through the public option and permits federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that cover abortion. The bill also ensures that at least one health insurance plan must cover abortion in every area of the country."
Dr. Yoest continued, "These provisions create a dramatic change from the status quo -- currently no federal dollars are used to pay for elective abortions or plans that cover abortion. Now, more than ever, pro-life members of Congress must demand the opportunity to vote on the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to prohibit abortion funding. Explicit language must be added to this health care bill to prevent unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Just as Americans United for Life had expected, the new House health care bill unveiled this morning includes the Capps Amendment language added during the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up. This bill will explicitly allow federal funding of abortion through the public option and permits federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that cover abortion. The bill also ensures that at least one health insurance plan must cover abortion in every area of the country."
Dr. Yoest continued, "These provisions create a dramatic change from the status quo -- currently no federal dollars are used to pay for elective abortions or plans that cover abortion. Now, more than ever, pro-life members of Congress must demand the opportunity to vote on the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to prohibit abortion funding. Explicit language must be added to this health care bill to prevent unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Today Is a Critical Day in Health Care Reform for Pro-Life America'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today is a critical day in the health care reform battle as the U.S. Senate Finance Committee considers several pro-life amendments filed by Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch that would prevent government funding for abortion and assisted suicide, and preserve current conscience laws for health care workers and providers.
A recent Rasmussen poll showed only 13 percent of Americans wanting taxpayer-funded abortions in health care reform. Despite this, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Max Baucus's bill, which is now undergoing mark-up, currently requires the government to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion. The bill would also enable individuals to receive refundable, advanceable tax credits to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, and require at least one plan in each premium rating area to cover abortion.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life said, "Today is a critical day in health care reform for pro-life America. All amendments that have had explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage have been defeated in Congress despite rhetorical assurances from President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid that abortion will not be in health care reform. With the upcoming vote on the pro-life amendments today, the Senate has another golden opportunity today to show pro-life America that abortion will be explicitly excluded from health care reform."
Dr. Yoest recently met with the White House on the issue of abortion in health care.
Here are the pro-life amendments being considered for a vote tomorrow (for a more detailed explanation, please go to view this downloadable chart):
-- Hatch Amdt. #C14 (355): Prohibits authorized or appropriated federal
funds under this bill from being used for elective abortions and plans
that cover such abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C13 (354): Protects the rights of conscience of health
care entities (individuals or organizations), preventing
discrimination against those who do not provide, pay for, provide
coverage of, or refer for abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C12 (353): Prohibits federal funds under this bill from
being used to pay for assisted suicide and offers conscience
protections to providers or plans refusing to offer assisted suicide
services.
BACKGROUND
Without an explicit, proactive exclusion of abortion from the health care bills, the courts and administrative agencies will impose an abortion mandate, just as they did with Medicaid (the Hyde Amendment must be included in the LHHS Appropriations Bill each year to prevent federal funding of abortion under Medicaid; however, the Hyde Amendment would not apply to this health care reform). But, so far, every single pro-life amendment proposed to prevent abortion funding and coverage in the health care reform bills in Congress has been defeated.
Mary Harned, Staff Counsel to Americans United for Life asks: "If pro-abortion members of Congress do not intend for the health care reform bills to fund and mandate abortion coverage, then why did they vote against all amendments that would have included explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage?"
The following pro-life amendments explicitly excluding abortion in the health care bills were defeated:
U.S. Senate
-- Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyo.) amendments that would have prevented
taxpayer funding of abortion and would prevent abortion clinics from
being eligible for federally qualified health center grants;
-- Sen. Orin Hatch's (R-Utah) amendments that would have prevented
tax-funded abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered or
unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (making the Hyde
Amendment permanent);
-- Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendments that would have ensured no
abortion mandates, prevented abortion clinics from being eligible for
federally qualified health center grants, prevented the invalidation
of state laws that regulate abortion, codified the Hyde/Weldon
conscience protection law, and ensured that Americans have
professional ethicists informing any Government-funded medical
decisions; and
-- Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Kansas) amendment which would have prevented the
invalidation of state laws regulating abortion.
U.S. House of Representatives
In the Education and Labor Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
In the Ways and Means Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Johnson)
(failed 18-23).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Cantor)
(failed 19-22).
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Reps. Pitts,
Stupak, and Blunt) (failed 29-30).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Reps. Stupak and
Pitts) (failed 27-31).
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
A recent Rasmussen poll showed only 13 percent of Americans wanting taxpayer-funded abortions in health care reform. Despite this, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Max Baucus's bill, which is now undergoing mark-up, currently requires the government to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion. The bill would also enable individuals to receive refundable, advanceable tax credits to purchase health insurance that covers abortion, and require at least one plan in each premium rating area to cover abortion.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life said, "Today is a critical day in health care reform for pro-life America. All amendments that have had explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage have been defeated in Congress despite rhetorical assurances from President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid that abortion will not be in health care reform. With the upcoming vote on the pro-life amendments today, the Senate has another golden opportunity today to show pro-life America that abortion will be explicitly excluded from health care reform."
Dr. Yoest recently met with the White House on the issue of abortion in health care.
Here are the pro-life amendments being considered for a vote tomorrow (for a more detailed explanation, please go to view this downloadable chart):
-- Hatch Amdt. #C14 (355): Prohibits authorized or appropriated federal
funds under this bill from being used for elective abortions and plans
that cover such abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C13 (354): Protects the rights of conscience of health
care entities (individuals or organizations), preventing
discrimination against those who do not provide, pay for, provide
coverage of, or refer for abortions.
-- Hatch Amdt. #C12 (353): Prohibits federal funds under this bill from
being used to pay for assisted suicide and offers conscience
protections to providers or plans refusing to offer assisted suicide
services.
BACKGROUND
Without an explicit, proactive exclusion of abortion from the health care bills, the courts and administrative agencies will impose an abortion mandate, just as they did with Medicaid (the Hyde Amendment must be included in the LHHS Appropriations Bill each year to prevent federal funding of abortion under Medicaid; however, the Hyde Amendment would not apply to this health care reform). But, so far, every single pro-life amendment proposed to prevent abortion funding and coverage in the health care reform bills in Congress has been defeated.
Mary Harned, Staff Counsel to Americans United for Life asks: "If pro-abortion members of Congress do not intend for the health care reform bills to fund and mandate abortion coverage, then why did they vote against all amendments that would have included explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage?"
The following pro-life amendments explicitly excluding abortion in the health care bills were defeated:
U.S. Senate
-- Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyo.) amendments that would have prevented
taxpayer funding of abortion and would prevent abortion clinics from
being eligible for federally qualified health center grants;
-- Sen. Orin Hatch's (R-Utah) amendments that would have prevented
tax-funded abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered or
unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (making the Hyde
Amendment permanent);
-- Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Okla.) amendments that would have ensured no
abortion mandates, prevented abortion clinics from being eligible for
federally qualified health center grants, prevented the invalidation
of state laws that regulate abortion, codified the Hyde/Weldon
conscience protection law, and ensured that Americans have
professional ethicists informing any Government-funded medical
decisions; and
-- Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Kansas) amendment which would have prevented the
invalidation of state laws regulating abortion.
U.S. House of Representatives
In the Education and Labor Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Souder)
(failed 19-29).
In the Ways and Means Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Johnson)
(failed 18-23).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Cantor)
(failed 19-22).
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Reps. Pitts,
Stupak, and Blunt) (failed 29-30).
-- Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Reps. Stupak and
Pitts) (failed 27-31).
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Family Research Council: Senator Baucus Undermines President Obama's Abortion Funding Claim
/PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday U.S. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) introduced a detailed summary of his "America's Health Future Act of 2009" that will be marked-up in the Senate Financial Services Committee next week.
The Baucus legislation explicitly includes abortion and would subsidize health plans that cover all elective abortions and moves well beyond the status quo of preventing federal funds from paying for abortion or subsidizing plans that covers abortion as is prevented under current laws governing Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan and the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. On Friday morning at the Values Voter Summit, this issue will be discussed in greater detail during a congressional panel discussion.
Responding, Tony Perkins said:
"Senator Baucus' new health care bill puts to rest the President's claim that 'abortion is not included' in the Senate health care bill. The Baucus plan includes abortion, pure and simple. Like the Capps abortion amendment in the House bill, the Baucus plan would subsidize health plans that cover elective abortions but with tax credits. The accounting used in the bill is a matter of smoke and mirrors, since elective abortion is authorized for health plans receiving government subsidies.
"The Baucus bill goes even farther by mandating that there be at least one health plan in each region across the country which covers elective abortions. Such a government mandate of abortion-covered plans in each state exchange and subsidizing such plans does little to prevent 'federal funding of abortion' as President Obama said last week. Moreover, the Baucus bill would spend $6 billion to establish health care co-ops and this funding could be used for elective abortion because it is not subject to the Hyde Amendment appropriations provision.
"If President Obama is serious about preventing funding for abortion in health care reform, he should immediately support adoption of Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to exclude abortion from all health care reform legislation. Democrat Senator Bob Casey voted for such an amendment in the Senate Health Committee.
"It's time for President Obama to stop the smoke and mirrors on abortion and health care and straightforwardly tell Congress to permanently exclude abortion coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Baucus legislation explicitly includes abortion and would subsidize health plans that cover all elective abortions and moves well beyond the status quo of preventing federal funds from paying for abortion or subsidizing plans that covers abortion as is prevented under current laws governing Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan and the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. On Friday morning at the Values Voter Summit, this issue will be discussed in greater detail during a congressional panel discussion.
Responding, Tony Perkins said:
"Senator Baucus' new health care bill puts to rest the President's claim that 'abortion is not included' in the Senate health care bill. The Baucus plan includes abortion, pure and simple. Like the Capps abortion amendment in the House bill, the Baucus plan would subsidize health plans that cover elective abortions but with tax credits. The accounting used in the bill is a matter of smoke and mirrors, since elective abortion is authorized for health plans receiving government subsidies.
"The Baucus bill goes even farther by mandating that there be at least one health plan in each region across the country which covers elective abortions. Such a government mandate of abortion-covered plans in each state exchange and subsidizing such plans does little to prevent 'federal funding of abortion' as President Obama said last week. Moreover, the Baucus bill would spend $6 billion to establish health care co-ops and this funding could be used for elective abortion because it is not subject to the Hyde Amendment appropriations provision.
"If President Obama is serious about preventing funding for abortion in health care reform, he should immediately support adoption of Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to exclude abortion from all health care reform legislation. Democrat Senator Bob Casey voted for such an amendment in the Senate Health Committee.
"It's time for President Obama to stop the smoke and mirrors on abortion and health care and straightforwardly tell Congress to permanently exclude abortion coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, August 17, 2009
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins Asks: Is This What President Obama Means by 'Robust' Conscience Protections?
/PRNewswire/ -- Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that Belmont Abbey College, a Roman-Catholic institution, must provide insurance coverage for abortion and contraceptives.
The ruling goes against the college's Catholic doctrine and also violates North Carolina state law which provides for exemption to for religious entities. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say:
"The EEOC has succeeded in threatening every college, university and church that provides medical services with litigation in the event that those institutions refuse to buckle-under to Washington's abrasive intrusions. This outrageous attack on the historic and clearly articulated convictions of a religious college demonstrate a growing effort on the part of the radical left to impose their anti-faith agenda on people who hold convictions contrary to those of the secular elite.
"Belmont Abbey's president has said the school would close before offering abortion services or referrals or dispensing contraceptives. He is a profile in courage, and FRC commends him for his brave and principled stance.
"President Barack Obama claimed that he would ensure 'robust' protection to the conscience rights of America's health care works and religious institutions. He claimed this as he was in the process of overturning Bush-era Health and Human Services protections. The EEOC, following his lead, is moving aggressively against the very religious liberty many of our forebears came to these shores to find. It is my hope he will publicly call on the EEOC to retract its ruling and stand for religious and personal freedom for all Americans," Perkins concluded.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The ruling goes against the college's Catholic doctrine and also violates North Carolina state law which provides for exemption to for religious entities. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say:
"The EEOC has succeeded in threatening every college, university and church that provides medical services with litigation in the event that those institutions refuse to buckle-under to Washington's abrasive intrusions. This outrageous attack on the historic and clearly articulated convictions of a religious college demonstrate a growing effort on the part of the radical left to impose their anti-faith agenda on people who hold convictions contrary to those of the secular elite.
"Belmont Abbey's president has said the school would close before offering abortion services or referrals or dispensing contraceptives. He is a profile in courage, and FRC commends him for his brave and principled stance.
"President Barack Obama claimed that he would ensure 'robust' protection to the conscience rights of America's health care works and religious institutions. He claimed this as he was in the process of overturning Bush-era Health and Human Services protections. The EEOC, following his lead, is moving aggressively against the very religious liberty many of our forebears came to these shores to find. It is my hope he will publicly call on the EEOC to retract its ruling and stand for religious and personal freedom for all Americans," Perkins concluded.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, July 10, 2009
Statement by Supreme Knight Carl Anderson: On the Meeting Between Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama
/PRNewswire/ -- The speculation over what the pope and president would discuss, and whether or not abortion would be center stage has been answered affirmatively. As the Vatican's statement makes clear "the conversation turned first of all" to issues "such as the defense and promotion of life, and the right to abide by one's conscience."
We also know that President Obama told the pope of his desire to "reduce the number of abortions," and of his "respect for the positions of the Church."
It is obvious that President Obama has a serious interest in engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the Catholic Church, and with Catholics, who make up one fourth of the U.S. population. President Obama clearly had much to gain from a successful meeting with the Pope.
Certainly this is another achievement for Vatican and American diplomacy and represents a positive development for those of us who hoped that this meeting might mark a new opportunity in the important relationship between the Catholic Church and U.S. government.
We applaud President Obama for showing sensitivity to the growing consensus among the American people favoring the right to life, restriction of abortion, and the protection of conscience.
As our Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll released today shows, there is a great deal of common ground among the American people on these issues. 86% would restrict abortion far more than it is today, and 79% would protect the right to conscience of health care workers. This is a real consensus on the heart of the abortion issue, and it is heartening to see the president's attention to it.
This is an important moment. The pope and the president have laid the foundation for trying to achieve authentic common ground. How we build on this meeting in a constructive way in the months and years ahead is critical. The following issues will help provide a true gauge of the progress made on achieving common ground with the Catholic community:
1. Adoption of a federal conscience clause regulation that gives real protection to Catholic institutions and individuals;
2. Health care legislation that does not contain a back door mandate for abortion;
3. Abortion reduction programs that respect pro-life crisis pregnancy and teenage abstinence programs;
4. Preservation of the pro-life riders that currently exist in the annual appropriations legislation. These riders, which restrict federal abortion funding, also raise conscience protection issues, since their removal would force tax payers to pay for abortions against their conscience.
5. Dropping any attempts to codify by statute the president's rescission of the Mexico City Policy, which allows international abortion funding by the United States.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
We also know that President Obama told the pope of his desire to "reduce the number of abortions," and of his "respect for the positions of the Church."
It is obvious that President Obama has a serious interest in engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the Catholic Church, and with Catholics, who make up one fourth of the U.S. population. President Obama clearly had much to gain from a successful meeting with the Pope.
Certainly this is another achievement for Vatican and American diplomacy and represents a positive development for those of us who hoped that this meeting might mark a new opportunity in the important relationship between the Catholic Church and U.S. government.
We applaud President Obama for showing sensitivity to the growing consensus among the American people favoring the right to life, restriction of abortion, and the protection of conscience.
As our Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll released today shows, there is a great deal of common ground among the American people on these issues. 86% would restrict abortion far more than it is today, and 79% would protect the right to conscience of health care workers. This is a real consensus on the heart of the abortion issue, and it is heartening to see the president's attention to it.
This is an important moment. The pope and the president have laid the foundation for trying to achieve authentic common ground. How we build on this meeting in a constructive way in the months and years ahead is critical. The following issues will help provide a true gauge of the progress made on achieving common ground with the Catholic community:
1. Adoption of a federal conscience clause regulation that gives real protection to Catholic institutions and individuals;
2. Health care legislation that does not contain a back door mandate for abortion;
3. Abortion reduction programs that respect pro-life crisis pregnancy and teenage abstinence programs;
4. Preservation of the pro-life riders that currently exist in the annual appropriations legislation. These riders, which restrict federal abortion funding, also raise conscience protection issues, since their removal would force tax payers to pay for abortions against their conscience.
5. Dropping any attempts to codify by statute the president's rescission of the Mexico City Policy, which allows international abortion funding by the United States.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, July 3, 2009
Republicans on Senate Committee Push to Exclude Abortion Services from Health Care Reform
/PRNewswire / -- Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are pushing for language in health care reform legislation that would eliminate coverage for abortion services. If this happens, many women could lose coverage for abortion services that their private insurance currently includes. Plus, millions of uninsured women will still lack a basic health care service despite having been promised a better quality of life.
If these senators are allowed to deny coverage of abortion services, the burden will inevitably fall on low-income women and widen the huge gap in health status and access to health care services that reforms are meant to remedy. Compared to their higher-income counterparts, low-income women are four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth.
As people of faith, we believe that health care reform should expand coverage to provide for the basic services that every human being deserves; it should not deny essential services to half of the population and aggravate the troubling disparities in health care affecting minorities and low-income individuals. For example, compared to her higher-income counterpart, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth.
Let there be no mistake, basic health care includes abortion services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45.
Reproductive health care, including abortion services, is an essential component of women's health. Women must get a fair shake in the final health care reform bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
If these senators are allowed to deny coverage of abortion services, the burden will inevitably fall on low-income women and widen the huge gap in health status and access to health care services that reforms are meant to remedy. Compared to their higher-income counterparts, low-income women are four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth.
As people of faith, we believe that health care reform should expand coverage to provide for the basic services that every human being deserves; it should not deny essential services to half of the population and aggravate the troubling disparities in health care affecting minorities and low-income individuals. For example, compared to her higher-income counterpart, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth.
Let there be no mistake, basic health care includes abortion services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45.
Reproductive health care, including abortion services, is an essential component of women's health. Women must get a fair shake in the final health care reform bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Opinion: Americans United for Life on Sotomayor Nomination
/PRNewswire / -- Americans United for Life (AUL) President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest reacted to President Barack Obama nominating Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court, stating:
"For all the President's talk of finding 'common ground,' this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise. Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the 'National Abortion Control Board,' denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations - supported by the vast majority of Americans - like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"For all the President's talk of finding 'common ground,' this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise. Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the 'National Abortion Control Board,' denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations - supported by the vast majority of Americans - like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)