|
|
President Obama's Health Plan
March 21, 2010 House Passes Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill, President Obama Will Sign On Sunday, March 21st, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the President’s pro-abortion health care bill by a slim majority of 219-212. Thirty-four House Democrats joined every Republican in opposing the pro-death measure to no avail. Despite the dastardly deal made by the President and Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), the bill DOES expand federal funding of abortion, will lead to the expansion of abortion services, will further ration health care, will empower death panels, and take over of 1/6 of our nation’s economy. NO executive order from the president will limit or change the impact of this so-called health care reform bill on the lives of unborn children, pregnant women, the sick, the aged, the elderly, and the unloved. Before the final votes, Rep. Stupak struck a deal with President Obama. The President agreed to write and sign an executive order that he claims will nullify the abortion funding. However, Texas Right to Life, along with every national Pro-Life organization, vehemently opposed the deal for numerous reasons: (1) An executive order cannot modify federal law. (2) Abortions will be funded regardless of the content of the executive order. (3) The most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history cannot be trusted to implement and enforce a measure that has no legal binding. At every opportunity, President Obama has assaulted innocent human life.
The death panels remain part of the passed legislation; again, these are panels with officers appointed by President Obama and pro-abortion Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that will determine who is worthy of what type of medical care. And now, after his record of unrelenting assaults on life, Congressman Bart Stupak trusts the President? Make no mistake, the executive order will not protect one life or one unborn baby while the floodgates of federal funds inundate abortion providers and agencies, public and private, that refer and promote abortion. The President cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says. Even Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), who leads the pro-abortion faction in the House, commented to the Associated Press that the executive order “doesn't change anything.” Congresswoman Jan Schakowsy (D-IL), another pro-abortion leader in the House, affirmed, “Assuming that there's no final, final, final, final shenanigans that go on with the Stupak people, I think we're OK.” We are certainly not OK! Several weeks ago, promises were made that the Senate would make all changes to assuage concerns of some House members, including the Pro-Life Democrats. Doing so would require the Senate to reconsider and amend the version passed by the House on Sunday. However, as this process has unfolded, Senate leadership and the White House have made clear that no such re-consideration will occur. Neither the President, nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is confident that the bill would survive another stop in the US Senate. In fact, there appears to be at least one if not more solid points of order that will completely kill any new “clean up bill.” In short, what is arguably the ugliest, most anti-Life piece of legislation in the history of our nation, passed entirely by Democrats, will go straight to the most pro-abortion President ever, and he will sign it (currently scheduled for Tuesday, March 23) to become the law of our land. We have wrought what we have sewn. May God have mercy on us. In the coming weeks we will examine where we go from here. The following is how the Texas delegation voted on the bill:
*While Chet Edwards did vote against the bill, he is not to be considered Pro-Life. He has consistently voted pro-abortion throughout his career in office and he voted against the bill as a matter of political expediancy. In November, Edwards voted against changing the bill to prohibit federal funding of abortion.
January 14, 2010 The Fight to Protect Life in the Health Care Bills Continues!
The Pro-Life fight against the health care bill suffered a setback on Christmas Eve when the Senate voted on party lines to approve the legislation, but we must press on and continue to fight if bill is to be defeated. The House previously passed a version of the bill in November and the two different versions must be reconciled. Both versions of the bill would cause rationing and denial of health care to the elderly and the disabled. The House version of the bill was successfully amended by Pro-Life Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joseph Pitts (R-PA) to prohibit the funding of abortions with taxpayer dollars. With the Stupak-Pitts amendment in place, the bill passed by a vote of 220-215. Unfortunately, soon after the vote and even before the Senate had taken up the legislation, pro-abortion leaders in both the House and the Senate vowed that the Stupak-Pitts language would be removed. As expected, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) removed the Pro-Life language in the Senate version. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) attempted to reinstate the Stupak-Pitts language but was rebuffed by fellow Democrats. Pro-Lifers held out hope because the Senate bill would need 60 votes to pass and Senator Nelson was vote number 60. We expected that in exchange for his vote, he would require that the Pro-Life language was included to ensure that taxpayer funds would not be used to subsidize abortions nationwide. In an unexpected turn of events, Senator Nelson caved to pro-abortion demands and allowed the bill to continue to fund abortions in exchange for several pork barrel promises for his own state. The Senate bill then passed by a vote of 60-40. Specifically, the bill would exempt Nebraska from costs associated with the expansion of Medicaid. In exchange for Nelson’s vote, this kickback alone would cost the 49 other states at least $100,000,000. The reconciliation of the two versions of the bill usually takes place in a conference committee; however, despite more than half a dozen campaign promises to the contrary, President Obama and congressional leadership will attempt to broker a deal in private and away from the public eye. (The amount of pork and taxpayer dollars promised for members of Congress to support this bill may never be fully understood. The deals we know include billions of dollars in taxpayer money for the home states of Senators Landrieu (Louisiana), Feinstein and Boxer (California), Sanders (Vermont), Kerry (Massachusetts), Dodd (Connecticut), Levin (Michigan), Harkin (Iowa), and many more.) Reconciliation may take several weeks but there are still actions that Pro-Lifers can take.
Congressman Solomon Ortiz (TX 27th district) Washington D.C. Office: (202) 225-7742 Corpus Christi Office: (361) 883-5868 Brownsville Office: (956) 541-1242 Congressman Henry Cuellar (TX 28th district) Washington D.C. Office: (202) 225-1640 Laredo Office: (956) 725-0639 Mission Office: (956) 424-3942 Seguin Office: (830) 401-0457 San Antonio Office: (210) 271-2851 Rio Grande City Office: (956) 487-5603 Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (TX 23rd district) Washington D.C. Office: (202) 225-4511 San Antonio Office #1: (210) 561-9421 San Antonio Office #2: (210) 922-1874 Del Rio Office: (830) 774-5500 Eagle Pass Office: (830) 757-8398 Fort Stockton: (432) 336-3975
Congressman Chet Edwards (TX 17th district) Washington D.C. Office: (202) 225-6105 Bryan Office: (979) 691-8797 Waco Office: (254) 752-9600 Cleburne Office: (817) 645-4743 The fight is by no means over. Senator Nelson is facing considerable pressure at home in Nebraska as even his home state was outraged by the deal that he made. Recently he was forced to ask that the special provisions for Nebraska be removed from the final bill. If Nelson crosses back over on the abortion issue, Majority Leader Reid is one vote short of the 60 needed for passage. In addition, the special election for the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat will take place in mid-January. Remarkably, the Republican is running within ten percentage points of the Democrat in a race that everyone wrote off several months ago. If the Republican upsets the Democrat, Reid will once again be a vote short of what is needed for passage. Please continue to work and pray for Life.
December 8, 2009 Senate Votes Down Nelson-Hatch Amendment; Bill Continues to Fund Abortions By a vote of a vote of 54 to 45, the U.S. Senate today tabled (killed) an amendment to remove elective abortion from the new federal programs that would be created by pending health care legislation. A majority of senators today voted to keep abortion covered in the proposed federal government insurance program, and to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. Now, the vote on cloture on the bill itself will become the key vote on whether to put the federal government into the abortion business. Texas Right to Life will oppose cloture on the bill, which would require 60 affirmative votes. In addition, a number of pro-life Democrats in the House, who supported passage of health care legislation on November 7, will not vote for the Senate bill in its current form. So, this is a long way from over. The amendment rejected today, supported by Texas Right to Life and National Right to Life, was sponsored by Senator Ben Nelson (D-Ne.) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). It contained the same substance as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which was adopted by the House of Representatives on November 7, 240-194. Both amendments would prevent the federal government insurance program (the "public option") from paying for abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). In addition, both amendments would prevent federal subsidies from being used to purchase private health plans that cover elective abortion, but would not restrict the sale or purchase of such policies with private funds.
November 18, 2009 Reid Rejects Stupak-Pitts Amendment Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs. Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record, said in a press release following release of the Reid language: "It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill." The Capps language referred to was opposed by NRLC and other pro-life organizations and was deleted by the House by a vote of 240-194 on November 7, as 64 Democrats (one fourth of all House Democrats), along with 176 Republicans, voted to replace it with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prevent federal subsidies for abortion by applying the principles of longstanding federal laws such as the Hyde Amendment to the new programs created by the health care legislation. Those principles prohibit both direct funding of abortion procedures, and subsidies for plans that cover elective abortions, in existing federal programs such as Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the military. Regrettably but predictably, Reid rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts language. Instead, Reid has sought to please the militant minority that demands funding of abortion through federal programs, even though substantial majorities of Americans believe that abortion should be excluded from government-funded and government-sponsored health programs. The Reid bill establishes a big new federal health insurance program, the public option (although now referred to in Reid's bill as the "community health insurance option"). The bill authorizes (on page 118) the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it. In addition, the bill creates new tax-supported subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand. National Right to Life and Texas Right to Life will continue to fight for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and to oppose the stubborn attempts of congressional Democratic leaders to establish new federal government programs that will fund coverage of elective abortions.
November 10, 2009 Health Care Bill Endangers Lives Your calls worked: Stupak-Pitts amendment passed. October 29, 2009 Federal Government Would Directly Fund Abortion Under Pelosi Health Care Bill Regarding the health care bill unveiled today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), a spokesman for the nation's largest pro-life organization said, "A vote for this bill is a vote to establish a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds." Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), referred specifically to language on page 110 of the new bill (H.R. 3962) which explicitly authorizes the "public health insurance option" to pay for all elective abortions. The "public health insurance option" or "public plan" would be a health insurance program operated directly by the federal government, through the Department of Health and Human Services. "The public plan will be a federal agency program, and all funds spent by the agency are federal funds," Johnson said. "The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an October 9 memo obtained by NRLC, confirmed that all funds spent by the bill's public plan will be federal funds. Prominent Democrats who have claimed that the federal government could pay for abortion with 'private' funds have been engaged in a big snow job -- and in swallowing such a contrived, implausible claim, many journalists have been all too gullible." Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) has proposed an amendment that would prohibit the federal government plan from paying for abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But Speaker Pelosi intends to try to force the House to pass the 1990-page bill under a "closed rule" (a procedure that allows no amendments to be considered), reportedly because she fears that the House would adopt the Stupak Amendment if a vote were allowed. NRLC and other pro-life groups are urging House members to vote against imposition of the closed rule. The showdown could occur on the House floor as soon as November 5 or 6. "Anyone voting to forbid amendments to this bill is in effect voting to set up a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds," Johnson said. While running for President, Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood that his health care legislation would create a public plan that would cover abortions. "Obama has never recanted his promise that the federal government plan will cover elective abortion -- he just wants to pretend that a federal agency could spend 'private' funds, an untenable claim," Johnson said. "The White House and top Democratic congressional leaders are trying to smuggle federal government funding of abortion into law, behind smokescreens of misleading, contrived language." The bill also has a second objectionable provision relating to abortion -- it would allow federal subsidies to help pay for the cost of private health plans that cover elective abortion, a departure from longstanding federal policy. Stupak's amendment would correct this problem, as well. October 8, 2009 NRLC: White House Press Secretary's Remarks Show White House Still Engaged in Smuggling Operation for Government Funding of Abortion WASHINGTON (October 8, 2009) -- A spokesman for the nation's major pro-life organization said that remarks by the White House press secretary on October 7, "once again demonstrated that the White House is a partner in an ongoing smuggling operation, which if successful will result in funding of abortion on demand by the federal government." The following exchange occurred during the October 7, 2009, daily press briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: QUESTION [by CNS News reporter Fred Lucas]: It's a question on health care, actually; two questions. First, in a letter to senators last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that, quoting, "So far the health reform bills considered in the committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met the President's challenge of barring the use of federal dollars for abortion." Is that statement wrong? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn't going to be changed in these health care bills. Q: There have been, though, several amendments that would explicitly bar abortions, that would therefore reject it, some of those amendments by Democrats -- MR. GIBBS: Again, there's a fairly well documented federal law that prevents it.
In his answers, Gibbs in essence repeated a discredited claim made by President Obama himself on August 20, when the President said: "There are no plans under health reform to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions. Nobody is talking about changing that existing provision, the Hyde Amendment. Let's be clear about that. It's just not true." More recently, Obama said in a September 9 speech to both houses of Congress that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." On September 13, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News asked Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, “So you're saying it will go beyond what we have seen so far in the House and explicitly rule out any public funding for abortion?," and received from Sebelius this answer: “Well that’s exactly what the President said and I think that’s what he intends that the bill he signs will do.” Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of right-to-life affiliates, said: "Gibbs' statement is one more proof, if any more were needed, that the White House is actively engaged in a political smuggling operation -- an attempt to achieve funding of elective abortion by the federal government, cloaked in smokescreens of contrived language and outright deception. There is no current federal law that would prevent the new programs created by the pending health care bills from paying for abortion on demand -- and the White House knows this full well. Only language written directly into the bills would prevent government funding of abortions -- but such language has been blocked by the Democratic chairmen of five congressional committees, with White House cooperation, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is refusing to allow the House to even vote on adding a true Hyde Amendment to the health care bill." "The motivation for the ongoing White House deception is found in three recent national polls that show strong public opposition to government-funded abortion," Johnson added. None of the funds that would be spent by the public plan, and none of the funds that would be spent by the premium subsidy programs, would be appropriated through the annual appropriations bills. This has been confirmed in memoranda issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. This means that none of these funds will be covered by the Hyde Amendment, because the Hyde Amendment applies only to funds appropriated through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Under the House bill (H.R. 3200), as amended by the Capps-Waxman Amendment, the public plan would be explicitly authorized to cover elective abortions. The public plan would be a program within the Department of Health and Human Services. As a federal agency, the public plan could not possibly pay for abortions with anything other than federal funds, as documented in this memorandum. In 2007, Barack Obama stood on stage alongside the president of the nation's largest abortion provider, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), and promised that his health reform legislation and his public plan would cover abortion. (This assertion was recently reviewed by PolitiFact.com and rated "true," here. You can watch a short video clip of Obama making the promises here.) "When senior congressional Democrats suggest that the public plan would pay for abortions with 'private funds,' they are engaged in a deception, a political hoax," Johnson said. "The public plan would be a program operated by a federal agency, which by law can spend only federal funds. The public plan would be engaged in direct funding of elective abortion. The Hyde Amendment would not apply to this program, and the Capps Amendment explicitly authorizes the federal agency to pay for the elective abortions, using funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account." Aside from the public plan, under which the government would directly fund elective abortion, both the House bill (H.R. 3200) and the two Senate bills (S. 1679 and the Senate Finance Committee bill crafted by Senator Max Baucus) would use federal funds to pay part of the cost of the premiums of private health plans that cover elective abortions. This would be a sharp departure from current federal policy. Current federal laws prevent both direct funding of abortion, and subsidies for health plans that cover abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). The Hyde Amendment, for example, prohibits the use of state Medicaid matching funds for elective abortion (even in states that choose to set up their own separate abortion-funding programs). But the Hyde Amendment and other current laws would not apply to the new premium subsidy programs, because they would not be funded through the appropriations bills to which the current restrictions are attached. NRLC has issued a detailed memorandum that explains how the proposed public plan and the proposed premium subsidy programs would be funded, and why the Hyde Amendment would not apply to the proposed new programs. Another NRLC memorandum explains why all of the funds that would be spent by the public plan, and all of the funds that would be used to subsidize health plans under the premium subsidy programs, are in reality and in law "federal funds." To document key points, both memoranda link to documents issued by the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office. August 18, 2009 Obama Says "Government Funding of Abortion" is "Fabrication," but the White House-Backed House Bill Explicitly Authorizes It WASHINGTON (August 19, 2009) -- In a conference call with supporters this afternoon, President Obama said that it is a "fabrication" to say that the legislation backed by the White House would result in "government funding of abortions," and that this is "untrue." The following was said by Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of state and local right-to-life organizations: Emboldened by the recently demonstrated superficiality of some organs of the news media, President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component of the health care legislation that his congressional allies and staff have crafted. As amended by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 30 (the Capps-Waxman Amendment), the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions. Obama apparently seeks to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums. But these are merely two types of public funds, collected and spent by government agencies. The Obama-backed legislation makes it explicitly clear that no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the government plan unless he or she is willing to give the federal agency an extra amount calculated to cover the cost of all elective abortions -- this would not be optional. The abortionists would bill the federal government and would be paid by the federal government. These are public funds, and this is government funding of abortion. In 2007 Obama explicitly pledged to Planned Parenthood that the public plan will cover abortions. Some journalists have reported that Obama "backed off" of this commitment in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News, broadcast July 21, but Obama actually carefully avoided stating his intentions -- instead, he simply made an artful observation that "we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care." It is true that there is such a tradition -- which Obama has always opposed, and which the Obama-backed bill would shatter. On August 13, NRLC released a detailed memo explaining the provisions of the pending bills that would affect abortion policy, with citations to primary sources. Many of the "factcheck" articles that have appeared in the news media in recent weeks reflect, at best, unsophisticated understandings of the provisions they purport to be explaining, and also give evidence of a weak understanding of Obama's history on the policy issues involved. The memo is downloadable in PDF format at the top of this page.
August 6, 2009 Capps Amendment Explained When pro-abortion forces face risk of defeat in Congress, they commonly put forward a “phony compromise,” a term used by pro-life lawmakers to refer to language that incorporates a pro-abortion policy goal but disguises it with language that is cosmetically pro-life. Pro-life groups knew the pro-abortion side was preparing a “phony compromise” on July 21, when Congressman Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) sent Speaker Pelosi a letter calling for “a common ground solution” on “the issue of abortion in health care reform.” “Ryan, who has not cast a pro-life vote since 2006, impersonates a pro-life lawmaker, but in reality he is an active agent of pro-abortion activists at groups such as Planned Parenthood and Third Way,” explained NRLC’s Douglas Johnson. “When Tim Ryan calls for ‘common ground,’ you know he has a memo from Planned Parenthood in his pocket.” Four other House Democrats co-signed Ryan’s letter – one of whom, Rep. Kendrick Meek (Fl.), has never cast a single anti-abortion vote during his entire congressional career. Just a few days earlier, Meek had voted against pro-life amendments to the health care bill in committee. When the House Energy and Commerce Committee met to amend H.R. 3200 on July 30, the “phony compromise” amendment was offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), who has voted pro-abortion 100 percent of the time during her 11 years in the House – but pro-life observers say that it was actually crafted by veteran staffers to committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.), one of the House’s most tenacious defenders of abortion. The Capps Amendment was strongly opposed by NRLC, but was adopted by the pro-abortion majority on the committee, over the “no” votes of the committee’s Republicans and six Democrats. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of he House Pro-life Caucus, said of the Capps Amendment, “It’s one of the most deceptive amendments I have ever seen. The bottom line is that money is fungible, and the plan itself will be subsidizing abortion-on-demand, with taxpayer funding commingled, and the numbers of abortions will go up significantly.” Unlike the Kennedy bill, the Capps Amendment says that private health plans would not be required to cover elective abortions. But it would create a new nationwide government-run insurance plan (called the “public option”), and authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to cover all abortions under that plan. In addition, the language would create a new program to provide federal subsidies to over 27 million Americans to help them purchase health insurance, and plans (either private plans or the new federal public plan) that cover abortion would be eligible for these subsidies. The Capps language says that the amount of money spent for abortions would be counted against funds obtained from private premiums – a device denounced by pro-life analysts as “a bookeeping sham.” “H.R. 3200 would drastically change longstanding federal policy,” said NRLC’s Johnson. “The bill creates a nationwide insurance plan run by the federal government, and the language explicitly authorizes this plan to cover all abortions. If this passes, the federal government would be running a nationwide abortion plan. Abortionists would send bills to the federal insurance plan and receive payment checks from the federal Treasury. It is a fiction, a sham, and a political ploy to pretend that this scheme does not constitute federal subsidies for abortion.” On the committee, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) jointly offered a genuine pro-life amendment to prohibit federal funds from flowing to any plan that covers abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. But the amendment failed, 27-31. Five Democrats on the committee ended up voting against H.R. 3200, of whom two, Stupak and Rep. Charles Melancon (La.), cited pro-life objections. All of the committee’s Republicans voted against the bill. Nevertheless, H.R. 3200 passed out of the committee favorably, 31-28. On July 29, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sent a letter to members of the committee, warning that H.R. 3200 contained provisions that would constitute “a radical change” from past federal policy on abortion, and open the door to federal funding of abortion. The letter urged committee members to adopt pro-life amendments to correct the problem. Following the completion of committee action, USCCB official Richard Doerflinger denounced the Capps Amendment, calling its purported separation of private premiums and federal subsidies “a legal fiction.” Under the Capps language, the public plan “must include abortions for any reason if the HHS Secretary (who supports publicly funded abortion) says so,” Doerflinger said. “This would be an enormous imposition on the working poor who may find the public plan to be the only one they can afford. Whether you call it federal funds or private premiums, they would be forced to pay for abortions they don't want and may find abhorrent.”
July 30, 2009 - House Energy & Commerce Committee votes out H.R. 3200 ("Health Care Reform" bill) with Capps Amendment. Pro-abortion legislators immediately hail phony Pro-Life compromise, which provides for abortion funding, as middle-ground.
July 18, 2009 - ACTION ITEM --> Please take a few minutes to call the office of your U.S. House member, give your name and address, and inform the staff person that you wish to be recorded as "opposed to the House Democratic Leadership health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, because it would result in federal mandates that health plans cover elective abortions, and would result in federal funding of abortion on demand." You can reach any U.S. House member's office through 202-225-3121. If your U.S. House member is listed below on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, please call his or her number now to ensure they get the message before voting begins. (To determine who your U.S. House member is, click here.) <-- ACTION ITEM Congressional Democratic leaders are aiming to bring massive "health care reform" bills to the floor of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives during the last week in July -- bills that National Right to Life says "would result in the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade." "These bills, which President Obama is pushing hard, would result in federally mandated coverage of abortion by nearly all health plans, federally mandated recruitment by abortionists by local health networks, and nullification of many state abortion laws. They would also result in federal funding of abortion on a massive scale. The pro-life movement needs to go to Condition Red on these bills, because they pose a mortal threat to the unborn and they are on a fast track to enactment," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. The imposition of sweeping pro-abortion mandates as part of “health care reform” is currently the top priority of many pro-abortion organizations, such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). These organizations are pushing for the abortion mandates both in public statements and in less visible lobbying efforts. In April, the president of PPFA said that her organization intends to use the health care legislation as a "platform" to guarantee access to abortion to "all women." Likewise, the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers, said, "NAF supports health care reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, for all women." Before approving the Sen. Ted Kennedy-sponsored bill, a Senate committee rejected a series of NRLC-backed amendments offered by pro-life Republican members of the committee. Specifically, the committee's Democrats (with the exception of Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.) voted down an amendment by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wy.) to prevent health plans from being required to pay for and provide access to abortions, an amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to prevent federal funding of abortions, and an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) to prevent nullification of many state laws regulating abortion. The pro-abortion majority even rejected a second Coburn amendment to protect the right of health-care providers to refuse to participate directly in providing abortions. Similar pro-life amendments were voted down in the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Education and Labor Committee, as only a few Democrats joined the committees' minority Republican members in support of the unsuccessful amendments. On July 20 or 21, the House Energy & Commerce Committee is expected to consider similar NRLC-backed pro-life amendments, proposed by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mi.). Texas members of the committee include: Congressman Joe Barton (R) - 202-225-2002 Congressman Michael Burgess (R) - 202-225-7772 Congressman Gene Green (D) - 202-225-1688 Congressman Charlie Gonzales (D) - 202-225-3236 Congressman Ralph Hall (R) - 202-225-6673
|
