BERGEN COUNTY RIGHT TO LIFE

Health Care Reform and Abortion

To understand why the subject of health care reform has been so contentious and controversial one needs to understand two things. The first is that abortion is a multi-million dollar industry that permeates global organizations and politics, and the second is that legislators who have been elected to serve their constituents are beholden to the abortion industry because of the industry’s financial support and endorsement.

Thus those legislators supported by Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Emily’s List, etc., are under pressure from the abortion industry to pass a health care bill that includes federal funding of abortion even though most Americans do not want their tax dollars to fund abortion. Currently Federal law restricts federal funding of abortion.

Forty-seven percent of Americans identified themselves as “pro-life” in a mid-July 2009 USA Today/Gallup survey. More Americans than ever before have identified themselves "pro-life" in 2009 surveys than has been the case in recent years. In Gallup’s May and July 2009 surveys, support for abortion to be legal under any circumstances dropped to 21 percent.

This loss of support for abortion may be due to improvements in ultrasound technology that demonstrate the humanity of the unborn child, advances in pre-natal care and the efforts of faith based groups and right to life organizations who have succeeded in educating people about the adverse impacts abortion has on women’s health and wellbeing.

Sen. Barack Obama’s radical pro-abortion views, especially his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), won him the support of the abortion industry in his 2008 presidential campaign. FOCA would have made null and void the laws that limit abortion, the clauses that protect freedom of conscience, and all restrictions on abortion.

The abortion industry and advocates of unlimited abortion who were disappointed by the failure to pass FOCA are those who want to ensure federal funding of abortion through health care “reform.” Those who value freedom of conscience led by pro-life Republicans continue to work to ensure the right of conscience for individual health care providers and laws that protect the right of conscience for institutions such as Catholic hospitals are specifically included in health care bills. This is often called a conscience clause. It is important because Catholic and other faith based institutions should not be forced to perform, recommend, or in any way participate in abortion. This first amendment freedom is guaranteed to all Americans.

Health care “reform” also threatens state laws that preserve a parental role when children under 18 seek abortions; state laws that restrict late-term abortions, and state laws that provide for ultrasounds before an abortion.

In the United States Planned Parenthood of America (PP) is the largest abortion provider. In its 2007-2008 annual report, Planned Parenthood reported a profit of $85 million, and revenue of $1 billion. Part of that revenue comes from our tax dollars – Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million from the U.S. government. Planned Parenthood aborted 15,560 more babies in 2007 than it did in 2006. 305,310 preborn babies were aborted in Planned Parenthood clinics or affiliates in 2007.

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the abortion industry giant boasts increased advocacy and abortion services in its 2008-2009 performance report. Despite an economic downturn IPPF provided almost 428,000 “abortion services” to young people alone, with a staggering 1,134,549 total number of such services across the globe. Excerpted from Lifenews.com, Jan. 4, 2010

Planned Parenthood wants to ensure federal funding of abortion through health care “reform.” The Planned Parenthood Action Fund advocates and supports pro-abortion candidates for federal office. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund Political Action Committee (Planned Parenthood Federal PAC) endorsed Obama for president in 2008.

PRO-ABORTION SENATORS ENDORSED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Planned Parenthood Federation PAC endorsed the following pro-abortion Senators in 2008. Incumbents had a 100 percent “pro-choice” voting record, and challengers and candidates for open seats who completed the Federal Candidate Questionnaire.

Mark Begich

Mark Udall

Joe Biden

Tom Harkin

Larry LaRocco

Dick Durbin

Tom Allen

John Kerry

Carl Levin

Al Franken

Max Baucus

Kay Hagan

Jeanne Shaheen

Frank Lautenberg

Tom Udall

Jeff Merkley

Jack Reed

Rick Noriega

MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ENDORSED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD

The following members of the U.S. House of Representatives – all pro-abortion Democrats - were endorsed by the Planned Parenthood Federal PAC:

Tim Bishop

Steve Israel

Carolyn McCarthy

Gary Ackerman

Gregory Meeks

Jerrold Nadler

Anthony Weiner

Edolphus Towns

Yvette Clarke

Nydia Velazquez

Carolyn Maloney

Charles Rangel

Jose Serrano

Eliot Engel

Nita Lowey

John Hall

Kirsten Gillibrand

Paul Tonko

Maurice Hinchey

Michael Arcuri

Dan Maffei

Alice Kryzan

Brian Higgins

Louise Slaughter

Eric Massa

H.R. 3200 AMERICA`S AFFORDABLE HEALTH CHOICES ACT OF 2009

H.R. 3200, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 14, 2009, was marked up by three House Committees last summer. Votes on this bill and on an alternative bill, H.R. 676, were expected to take place in the House of Representatives in September 2009, and again in October 2009.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT TO CUT MASSIVE ABORTION FUNDING

On September 28, 2009 a bipartisan group of 183 members of Congress (25 Democrats and 158 Republicans), sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi urging her to allow a vote on an amendment to cut the massive abortion funding from the main health care "reform” bill. The letter requested that all members of the House of Representatives have an opportunity to vote their consciences on pro-life amendments without threat of ramifications from party leaders.

H.R. 3962

On November 7, 2009, the House of Representatives adopted the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that would permanently prohibit a proposed new federal government insurance program, the “public option” from paying for abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would also permanently prohibit the use of proposed new federal premium subsidies to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest. 194 Democrats opposed the Amendment. 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats voted for it and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment was approved. Following approval of the Stupak-Pits Amendment, one version of the health care reform bill, H.R. 3962, was passed by the House. The cost was estimated at $1.1 trillion over a ten year period. The bill was sent to the Senate. Excerpted from National Right to Life News, November/December 2009

Section 1233 of the House health care bill concerns end of life issues such as living wills. A 65 year old person who becomes eligible for Medicare and visits his doctor would be invited to discuss end of life issues. A healthy 65 year old whose doctor introduces the subject of end of life issues might not foresee a future chronic, non-terminal illness when he would be denied food and hydration because he had signed a living will. The doctor who introduces the discussion would be reimbursed by Medicare. A medical review board could decide that a patient’s medical care is a drain on expensive and limited government resources, and would have the authority to decide how long the patient will live. Critics say the push to pass health care reform resulted in legislators not having sufficient time to study the bill - three different House committees had studied the bill and had not seen any problem with Section 1233.

SENATE BILL H.R. 3590 - HARRY REID`S MANAGER’S AMENDMENT

The House bill, H.R. 3962, was sent to the Senate, but the Senate instead chose to consider H.R. 3590, a bill that contains abortion provisions similar to those found in the original House bill. The bill was sponsored by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Pro-life Senators offered an amendment, the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, but on December 8, 2009 the Senate rejected the amendment that would have prohibited funding of abortion by the government insurance program and federal subsidies for private plans that cover abortion.

Excerpted from National Right to Life News, November/December 2009

The Democrats met early in the morning, and late at night trying to secure the 60 votes necessary for passage. Americans stopped preparations for Christmas to write and call their senators yet again, urging them to vote NO on Harry Reid`s Manager’s Amendment to H.R. 3590. The Manager’s Amendment contains abortion related language that violates the principles of the Hyde Amendment. It requires that the federal government pay premiums for private health plans that cover abortion. The Manager’s Amendment does not provide adequate conscience protection. The Manager’s Amendment contains provisions that threaten the lives of older people, and people with disabilities while at the same time it increases taxes and insurance premiums. This bill was so unpopular that the Democratic leadership had to make many promises of special favors to get the 60 votes needed. Sadly, on Christmas Eve, all 58 Democrat Senators and two independents voted for the bill. The price tag for the Senate bill is $871 billion.

PEOPLE ARE AFRAID

With all the reporting on the many amendments and the many health care “reform” bills, people - even people who are not usually that concerned with what is happening in Washington - started to pay close attention because they became afraid. People fear cuts to their Medicare coverage. People fear rationing of medical care and prescribed drugs. Who has the right to decide who gets necessary medical care? What if those prescribed pills will no longer be covered? People who love freedom are afraid of having the government decide what treatments, if any, they will be eligible to receive if they become ill - especially at the end of their lives. But even younger people are afraid that health "reform" could mean restrictions on necessary care for themselves or their children.

Those whose sensibilities, moral or religious views prevent their involvement with abortion fear the health care “reform” bills do not adequately honor conscience clauses that allow doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals to opt out of performing or assisting in abortions and prescribing or filling prescriptions for abortifacient drugs.

Then there is the cost of health care reform. People who could care less about right to life issues and the moral questions posed by health care “reform” do not want to mortgage the futures of our children and grandchildren to pay for health care.

For one reason or another, most Americans do not approve of the health care bill that was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve.

Americans know they have one last chance to be heard as Congress works to iron out the differences between the House and the Senate bills. They will continue to urge Washington legislators to either pass no health bill or to include specific language that will:

• Prevent federal funding of abortion;

• Ensure that we continue to be free to spend our own money on health care;

• Prevent health care rationing;

• Prevent euthanasia;

• Prevent the denial of food, fluids and necessary medical treatments.

AMERICA – LAND OF PROTEST

Americans have protested from the beginning. Everyone knows the Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. There have been many anti-war protests including that against the war in Vietnam. The abolitionists, the fight for the vote, the civil rights movement, and the right to life movement are some of the best known protests. Every year since 1973, the year that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion for the full nine months of pregnancy, millions of Americans have protested – and they will continue to protest until abortion is no longer legal in the United States. Whatever law is passed, pro-lifers will continue to be a voice for the unborn and for the sanctity of all human life.

In 2009 Americans who had never before been part of a protest, turned out in record number to protest against President Obama’s agenda, big government, wasteful spending, the stimulus package, and tax increases. These protests that took place across the country beginning on April 15th – again over the July 4th weekend - and on September 12th. As many as one million people rallied in Washington D.C. on September 12th.

According to the Rasmussen Poll released on January 4, 2010, 52 percent of voters oppose the health care legislation. And a majority of Americans - 53 percent - favor a ban on abortion funding in any health care bill Congress may approve. Only 40 percent of respondents are opposed to such a ban.

Americans are not going to sit quietly by while Congress makes major decisions that will affect their lives, the lives of their children, and the lives of the handicapped and infirm.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS AND THE UNIONS

Opponents of both the House and the Senate bills hope that House Democrats will continue to vote their consciences as they did with the House bill, and that the unions will continue to oppose the 40 percent tax on high-cost health insurance included in the Senate bill.

SUPREME COURT RULING?

Ben Pershing reported in a January 2nd article in the washingtonpost.com that, “Opponents of the health care reform bill are not giving up the fight, and some think the last, best hope to halt the legislation lies not in the Capitol but in the court across the street. . ..A small but vocal contingent of legal scholars and many Republican lawmakers argue that the measures passed by both chambers are unconstitutional and will be ruled so by the Supreme Court. Their primary target: the individual mandate, which requires people to get health insurance or pay a financial penalty of at least 2 percent of their income to the government.. . .The bills would force people to buy a particular product. Laws requiring drivers to carry auto insurance do the same thing, but people can choose not to own a car. The health insurance mandate includes no such alternative.”

"In the history of this country, the federal government has never required every American to enter into a contract with a private company," said Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center. Barnett and two co-authors made the case against the individual mandate in a legal memorandum published by the conservative Heritage Foundation in early December. To uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they argued, the Supreme Court would have to find that the Constitution`s Commerce Clause has "no limits." "If Congress can mandate this, they can mandate anything," they wrote."

“Defenders of the mandate point out that the Supreme Court has ruled Congress may regulate "activities that `substantially affect` interstate commerce," and that individuals` purchasing (or not purchasing) health insurance clearly falls within that category. Besides, Balkin added, "It`s a really easy argument to show that this is a tax designed to promote the general welfare. . . . The Commerce Clause issue is irrelevant."

U.S. BISHOPS

The U.S. Bishops issued a statement just before Christmas in which they said they “still oppose passage of the U.S. Senate’s proposed health care bill. . .It does not seem to allow purchasers who exercise freedom of choice or of conscience to ‘opt out’ of abortion coverage in federally subsidized health plans that include such coverage.”

“. . .This legislation should not move forward in its current form. It should be opposed unless and until such serious concerns have been addressed.” In a separate letter, Cardinal DiNardo reaffirmed the position of the 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”.

He concluded by stating that the bishops will “continue to work for health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all”.

Congressional Democrats are seriously examining skipping the formal conference committee process in order to eliminate procedural votes that could hold up or kill the health care bill. House and Senate Democrats would negotiate informally with one chamber modifying their legislation to suit the other until a bill could be approved by both. The final bill would go to the president. Observers say the Senate bill will be the basis for the final legislation. If this is so, pro-life advocates will be working overtime to oppose the bill because the Senate language allows states to force taxpayers to fund abortions and could allow the Obama administration to force insurance companies to pay for abortions. Under this non-conference committee process, observers say a final bill could be sent to Obama by the end of the month. (Excerpted from LifeNews.com)

If you remember that the Partial Birth Abortion Law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007 you will realize that anything is possible. One thing is certain - if a health care “reform” bill is finally enacted, Republicans and all those who love freedom will have their work cut out for them to try to undo the damage.

WEB SITES

Planned Parenthood Action Fund re Endorsement of Pro-Choice: http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/campaigns/2008-congressional-results-226.htm#NY

Planned Parenthood Action re Health Care Reform: http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/healthreform/683.htm

The National Right to Life Committee web site: http://capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=S&state=US&session=110&x=10&y=14

Washingtonpost.com, Ben Pershing, January 2, 2010

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34667462/ns/politics-washington_post

Legal Memorandum published by the Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0049.cfm

U.S. Abortion Attitudes Closely Divided, by Lydia Saad, Re Mid-July USA Today/Gallup poll,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122033/u.s.-abortion-attitudes-closely-divided.aspx

Rasmussen Reports, Health Care Reform, Jan. 4, 2009:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Family and Life, http://www.familyandlife.org/Abortion-and-Embryo/1438/9/9.html

LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/nat5837.html

- - - - - -