[Apologetics] Obama Proposals Would Expand Pro-Abortion Provisions in Senate Health Bill

[Art Kelly]

________________________________

From: nrlc at nrlc.org [mailto:nrlc at nrlc.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 1:46 PM
To: Art Kelly
Subject: Obama Proposals Would Expand Pro-Abortion Provisions in Senate
Health Bill


 <http://www.nrlc.org/WL/nrlcBannernobaby.jpg> 	
  
For immediate release:
Monday, February 22, 2010

For further information: 
Derrick Jones, 202-626-8825, mediarelations at nrlc.org 

SENATE HEALTH BILL WOULD BECOME EVEN MORE EXPANSIVELY

PRO-ABORTION IF MODIFIED BY NEW OBAMA PROPOSALS

WASHINGTON -- The following statement may be attributed to Douglas
Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee
(NRLC), the federation of right-to-life affiliates in all 50 states.

Any member of Congress who votes for the final legislation proposed by
President Obama will be voting for direct federal funding of elective
abortion through Community Health Centers, and also an array of other
pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates.

The health bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) had become,
by the conclusion of the Senate amendment process, the most expansively
pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress
since Roe v. Wade.  The Senate bill, as passed, contained seven distinct
problems pertaining to abortion policies.  (The bill passed earlier by
the House, H.R. 3962, contained none of these pro-abortion components,
thanks to adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment on the House floor on
November 7, 2009, by a vote of 240-194.)  President Obama today proposed
"a targeted set of changes to" the Senate-passed bill.  None of
President Obama's proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping
pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill, and he actually proposes to
increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize
abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize
private health insurance that covers abortion (through the
premium-subsidy tax credits program).  

If all of the President's changes were made, the resulting legislation
would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through
Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private
health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally
administered plans), and would authorize federal mandates that would
require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion.  

Here is one problem, offered for illustration:  The Senate bill, due to
a last-minute amendment, provides $7 billion for the nation's 1,250
Community Health Centers, without any restriction whatever on the use of
these federal funds to pay directly for abortion on demand.  (These
funds are entirely untouched by the "Hyde Amendment" that currently
covers Medicaid.)  Obama today proposed to increase that figure to $11
billion, but without adding a prohibition on the use of the funds for
abortion.  (The House-passed bill would provide $12 billion, but in the
House bill the funds would be covered by the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.)
Two pro-abortion groups, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the
Abortion Access Project, are already actively campaigning for Community
Health Centers to perform elective abortions.  In short, the Senate bill
would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through
Community Health Centers.  A memorandum documenting this issue in
further detail is posted here:
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoCommHealth.pdf
<http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoCommHealth.pdf> 

The abortion-related differences between the House-passed and
Senate-passed bills are far, far greater than one would gather from
reading superficial summaries such as those published repeatedly in the
mainstream news media.  These thumbnail sketches have tended to focus
exclusively and superficially on certain provisions associated with
Senator Ben Nelson.  NRLC believes that the Nelson provisions are
unacceptable, but the pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill go far
beyond the flawed Nelson provisions.  A letter from NRLC to U.S. House
members, explaining the multiple pro-abortion components of the
Senate-passed bill, is posted here:
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetteronAbortionProvisions.html
<http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetteronAbortionProvisions.html> 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)  produced a 13-page
memorandum that throws the many unacceptable provisions of the Senate
bill into stark relief, which is posted here:
http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/life_conscience.pdf
<http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/life_conscience.pdf> 

A substantial number of pro-life Democrats in the House, including some
lawmakers whose names have not been mentioned on the various published
lists, have told their constituents that they are not going to vote for
the Senate-passed bill because of the abortion problems.  For pro-life
Democrats, President Obama's proposal only makes matters worse. The only
thing that would fix the Senate bill on abortion is permanent, bill-wide
language that is functionally identical to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment
adopted in the House on November 7, 2009.

The Obama proposal also would force rationing of lifesaving medical
treatment, a matter that will be the subject of separate comment by the
National Right to Life Committee.

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson and Senior Legislative Counsel
Susan Muskett are available to provide comment and analysis on the Obama
proposals.  Please contact the NRLC Communications Department at (202)
626-8825 to arrange an interview.

  
DONATE
Help Support NRLC <http://www.nrlc.org/donations.htm> 

 


[Change Subscription
<http://sub.ezinedirector.net/?fa=m&s=45392785&c=964916997> ]   [Cancel
Subscription
<http://sub.ezinedirector.net/?fa=r&id=45392785&c=964916997> ]
 Web Bug from
http://srv.ezinedirector.net/?n=3537963&s=45392785<http://www.sng.ecs.so
ton.ac.uk/mailscanner/images/1x1spacer.gif> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20100222/daa06248/attachment.html>