“For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded
the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is
not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth
of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void.”

 The results of ongoing litigation are now split, with the Obama Department of Justice having been handed two wins and two losses.   The Florida decision by Judge Vinson is of critical importance because it addresses a legal challenge jointly filed by a majority of the states, as well as two individuals and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. 

Selected excerpts from Judge Vinson’s opinion and the full opinion of January 31, 2011 can be viewed here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/01/obamacare-unconstitutional-federal-judge-roger-vinson-florida-1.html

 See also:  5 Ways Obamacare Funds Abortion

“In her argument, the Secretary urges an expansive interpreation of the concept of [economic] activity.  She posits that every individual in the United States will require health care at some point in their lifetime, if not today, perhaps next week or even next year.  Her theory further postulates that because near universal participation is critical to the underwriting process, the collective effect of refusal to purchase health insurance affects the national market.  Therefore, she argues, requiring advance purchase of insurance based upon a a future contingency is an activity that will inevitably affect interstate commerce.  Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions.  This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”

This case, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is separate from the high-profile challenge brought by 20 states that is now pending ruling in a Florida federal court.  District court judges in two separate challenges have upheld the individual mandate, making an ultimate Supreme Court resolution more likely especially if there is a split in the upcoming decisions by the federal courts of appeals.

• READ THE COURT DECISION:  Virginia v. Sebelius (E.D. Va. 12/13/2010).

Related Resources:

1. Politico reports on the Virginia ruling.
2. K. Parker, “Federally Funded Abortions are in our Future,” Washington Post (Mar. 28, 2010).
3. J. McCormack, “Stupak Deal Brokered by Former Planned Parenthood Lobbyist,” Weekly Standard (Mar. 24, 2010).
4. BDF: Your State Can Enact Obamacare Abortion Opt-Out Legislation

Obamacare Abortion Coverage Opt-Out Act

After providing legal assistance to Arizona, BDF drafted and provided legal testimony on a new law that makes Louisiana the fourth state to opt-out of the tax-subsidized abortion coverage.

BDF model legislation recognizes that Obamacare may be struck down in court.  BDF’s model therefore includes this language:

Section 2. Nothing in this Act shall be construed or implied to recognize any independent right to abortion under the constitution or laws of this state, nor shall it be construed or implied to recognize the constitutional validity of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, P.L. 111-148.

Bioethics Defense Fund was the only legal organization providing on-the-ground drafting and legal expertise to the Governor’s staff and the bill author in Louisiana and to the Catholic Conference in Arizona.  We are now consulting for nearly a dozen states whose legislatures were near a close at the time the President signed the national healthcare bill into law.

MODEL LEGISLATION: Contact BDF lawyers Nikolas T. Nikas and Dorinda C. Bordlee at info@bdfund.org or 504-231-7234.

Read the bill text of BDF-drafted La. H.B. 1247 and learn more information here.

OBAMACARE COURT CHALLENGE: The Obamacare health insurance exchanges are set to begin in 2014 IF they survive pending court challenges.   BDF will be representing the Catholic Medical Association in an amicus brief during the important appellate review of upcoming rulings.  Of particular concern is the law’s improper mandate that citizens in states who have not opted-out must use their personal dollars to buy abortion coverage, whether they want that coverage or not. Stay tuned.

Committee Testimony submitted by BDF Senior Counsel Dorinda C. Bordlee; La. Senate Health and Welfare Committee, 5/26/2010

Note: H.B. 1247 by Rep. Frank Hoffman passed by a vote of 5-2 and will be heard this week on the Senate floor before it heads to Governor Jindal’s desk.

House Bill 1247 by Representative Frank Hoffman is a common-sense, common-ground bill that simply takes advantage of an express provision found in the recently enacted federal health care overhaul bill.  HB 1247 addresses health plans that cover elective abortion in the so-called “Exchanges” that will be created in each State under the federal bill called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

 “Exchanges” will basically be Expedia-like markets where consumers can compare various health insurance plans before buying.

Contrary to current federal policy, the new Obama healthcare law will allow citizens by the year 2014 to use tax-subsidies in the state Exchanges to purchase insurance plans that cover elective abortion.

However – and this is the important part – Section 1303 of the new federal health care law expressly gives Louisiana and all other states the power to opt-out of allowing health plans in the Exchange to cover elective abortion. The law provides as follows:

 ‘‘SEC. 1303. ‘‘(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.— ‘‘(1) A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition.

 In April of this year, Tennessee and Arizona became the first states to enact this “Abortion Opt-out” law.  Bills have also been recently passed and sent to the Governors of Missouri, Mississippi, Florida and Oklahoma. 

 Louisiana must pass HB 1247 if the state wants to take advantage of the option to prohibit tax-subsidized abortion through health plans in the Louisiana Exchange.

 Abortion is about taking human lives, not saving them.  That’s why abortion is not healthcare.  And that is why overwhelming majorities in Louisiana and across the nation oppose the use of scarce tax dollars to fund other people’s elective abortions.

 ______________________________
Dorinda C. Bordlee
Vice President, Senior Counsel
Bioethics Defense Fund
Human Rights from Beginning to End
www.BDFund.org

dbordlee@bdfund.org
(504) 231-7234

As a co-drafter of this bill (which can be read here), Bioethics Defense Fund included the following provision to recognize that Obamacare may be repealed or invalidated in the pending court challenges:

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed or implied to recognize any independent right to abortion under the constitution or laws of this state, nor shall it be construed or implied to recognize the constitutional validity of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.”

Abortion Insurance Opt-out: Policy Points

La. H.B. 1247 does two things:

 1.      Takes the option in the new national health reform law to prohibit elective abortion coverage in health plans included in the future Louisiana “Exchange;” 

 2.     Prohibits all Louisiana health insurance issuers from covering elective abortion to provide for consistent regulation of health plans inside and outside of the Exchange.

 The Obama health insurance legislation is entitled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”  Section 1303 of the legislation clearly gives Louisiana the power to opt-out of abortion coverage in the state exchange:

 ‘‘SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.

‘‘(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition.

 ‘‘(2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT.—A State may repeal a law described in paragraph (1) and provide for the offering of such services through the Exchange.

 OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS:  These objections were raised in the La. House Insurance Committee, where the bill passed by a vote of 8-1 on April 14, 2010

• Objection:  We should not pass HB 1247 and leave the status quo in the insurance industry.

 Answer:  If we do not pass HB 1247, there will be a change in the status quo regarding tax-subsidized abortion in the soon-to-be-established La. Exchange.  The Hyde Amendment currently forbids the use of federal funds for any part of a health benefits package that covers elective abortions.  Unlike Hyde, the new Obama health legislation allows citizens to use tax subsidies in the state Exchanges to purchase insurance plans that cover elective abortion. Louisiana must pass HB 1247 to take advantage of the option to prohibit all health benefits plans in the Louisiana Exchange from providing tax-subsidized abortion.

• Objection:  HB 1247 illegitimately interferes with business.

Answer:  First, the Louisiana Association of Health Plans has informed the author that they are remaining neutral on this legislation. 

Further, HB 1247 is not about business, it is about the moral issue established in Louisiana law regarding the sanctity of human life.  Since 1973, Louisiana has treated abortion differently than other issues because it takes the life of a living human being.  Because of this, Louisiana already regulates other private businesses with respect to abortion, such as hospitals and abortion facilities.

Further, Section 1(c)(2) the bill clearly states that the prohibition of elective abortion coverage will be applied at the renewal of a contract.  It will therefore not immediately alter any current contracts.

Finally, Louisiana is completely within its power to enact HB 1247.  The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 (15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015) gave states the power to regulate the insurance industry, and since then 5 other states (Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, and Oklahoma) have taken the opportunity to prohibit the insurance coverage of elective abortion within their state.

• Objection: HB 1247 has an exception to prevent the death of the mother; what about providing insurance to abort a child with abnormalities that make the child likely to die during or soon after childbirth?

 Answer:  We certainly feel great sympathy for those undergoing this situation.  However, the psychological stress of carrying a child with fatal abnormalities will not be lessened by an insurance company paying for the woman to abort that child. 

 The 5 States that already ban elective abortion coverage do not pay for aborting children thought to have fatal abnormalities.  Insurance will cover childbirth, and if the unborn child dies in the course of the delivery or shortly thereafter, that is not considered an elective abortion – therefore the usual medical expenses of the childbirth would be covered by insurance.

In addition, because the determination of whether a child will survive outside the womb is not always a black or white issue, a statutory exception for cases of fetal abnormality would have to be written in such a broad manner  that it would open loopholes for almost all abortions to be funded by insurance.

 The study can be reviewed at www.BDFund.org/abortionhurtswomen.asp, last checked April 19, 2010. This meta-analysis reviewed over 60 international studies and included more than one million women.

 ________

La. H.B. 1247 by Rep. Frank Hoffman does two things:

(1) prohibits Louisiana health insurance issuers from covering elective abortion, defined to mean an abortion for any reason other than to save the life of the mother, and

(2) provides that health plans offered through the newly created State Exchanges shall not provide elective abortion coverage.

 Abortion is about destroying lives, not saving them.  That’s why elective abortion isn’t health care and has no place in health insurance policies or health reform legislation.

 In addition to intentionally taking the life of a healthy human being in the womb, studies show that abortion carries significant risks of causing physical and psychological harm to women. 

• Unfortunately, the health insurance reform bill signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010 is the most expansive abortion-funding legislation ever to be passed by Congress.

The Obama health insurance legislation is entitled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (“the Obama Act”).  It enables both: (1) direct funding of abortion at federally regulated Community Health Centers (CHCs); and (2) federal subsidies of health insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage, provided that enrollees also pay an abortion surcharge into a segregated fund.

• La. H.B. 1247 does not and cannot address the above two streams of federal funding.  Rather, H.B. 1247 is in response to the following “Nelson compromise language” included in the Obama Act:

 ‘‘SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
‘‘(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.—

 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition.

 ‘‘(2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT.—A State may repeal a law described in paragraph (1) and provide for the offering of such services through the Exchange.

Conclusion:  In addition to taking advantage of this option to prohibit elective abortion coverage in health plans offered through the state Exchange, H.B. 1247 follows the model in effect in seven states by prohibiting all health insurance issuers from covering elective abortion: Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.

• BDF is also assisting policy makers with other customized approaches, including Arizona, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and New York.

Federally funded abortions are in our future

By Kathleen Parker
Washington Post, Sunday, March 28, 2010; A11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603066_pf.html

• Also of interest, is Yuval Levin’s NRO post debunking Mr. Stupak’s claim that the Obama Executive Order is equivalent to the Bush Executive Order on non-embryonic stem cells. 

While Congressman Stupak may be able to deceive himself, he won’t be able to hide behind Hyde for long. 

Kathleen Parker, a syndicated Washington Post columnist, has a nice, clean explanation of how the health care bill will lead to federally-funded abortions. . . and she quotes Bioethics Defense Fund:

  Federally funded abortions are in our future
  By Kathleen Parker, Sunday, March 28, 2010; A11

  What’s Next?   Many of you are asking us the obvious question: What’s next?    In addition to promoting life-affirming laws in the States such as the Ultrasound Before Abortion Act, here’s what Bioethics Defense Fund is doing right now in response to the passage of Obama healthcare reform:

   ·         BDF is offering research and consultation to State Attorneys General regarding the Court Challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare.

  ·         BDF  is assisting legislatures right now with model language to enable States to prohibit abortion coverage in health insurance plans included in the mandated State Health Insurance Exchanges. Request BDF model language by contacting info@bdfund.org.  

·         BDF is engaging the media to help the public understand the need to block the future public funding of abortion at community health centers, as explained in this syndicated column by Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker.

  ·        BDF is developing legal and policy strategies to educate lawmakers who desire to make Hyde-like language a permanent and comprehensive part of federal law, so that it is no longer subject to phony Executive Orders (as we explain here at NRO).

  ·         BDF is continuing to provide user-friendly public education via media outlets and our Obamacare blog, www.YourHealthcare411.com.

March 21, 2010. 11:02 pm ET.  Bioethics Defense Fund lawyers have carefully analyzed the text of the Executive Order to be signed by President Obama as a companion to the Senate health bill just passed by a vote of 219-212.  See how your Representatives voted here.  The bill now heads to the President’s desk for signature, and it will be the law of the land immediately.  BDF senior counsel Dorinda Bordlee issued the following statement:

“The language of the Executive Order reveals that it was a meaningless sham designed to induce the Stupak Democrats to vote ‘yes’ on the Senate bill that provides federal subsidies and direct funding of abortion. The Obama administration knows full well that statutory law overrides executive orders. The President acting alone cannot “extend” the Hyde Amendment policy to new programs as the Executive Order vaguely purports to do – only the Congress can do that.  A court challenge (i.e. by Planned Parenthood) would immediately invalidate the null promises of the Executive Order.  Bioethics Defense Fund is deeply disappointed that the Stupak Democrats allowed empty words and an obvious political ploy to trump the sanctity of life principle that they claimed to defend.”

Of special interest is the decision of a leading pro-life woman’s group to strip Congressman Stupak of an award:

“This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform,” SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser told LifeNews.com.

“We will no longer be doing so. By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country,” she said.

Even the nation’s largest abortion provider — Planned Parenthood — is claiming “VICTORY” because they “were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his Executive Order.”

• WHAT DOES THE EXECUTIVE ORDER SAY?: Read BDF’s NRO post to see our quick legal analysis of the 2 reasons why the Executive Order is not worth the paper on which it is written:

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2QwNTRiNzY0M2JlYTIxOTNkNTEzMzFhYTIyYWNlZjc=

March 20, 2010.  12:50 pm. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday that she will not cut a deal with a group of anti-abortion Democrats to include tighter restrictions on abortion funding in the final health care bill, suggesting that she believes she has enough votes to pass the legislation without them. 

Pelosi told Fox News that there will be no vote on a separate bill adding abortion restrictions championed by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. to the final legislation. 

Read the full article at Fox News.

The House leadership is allowing only 72 hours for the House and the public to review the 153 pages of the House Reconciliation Bill.  Leaders report that they will attempt to pass the bill in the House on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning.

• The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have issued informative resources explaining large scale funding of abortion in the current Senate bill.
• Here’s one analyst’s opinion in National Review Online of the latest vote count.

Last week revealed two profiles in courage (by the President’s cousin, and Rep. Stupak), and a rare moment of honesty where Chairman Waxman admitted, “but we want to pay for abortions.”  Read on. . .

OBAMA’S COUSIN – THE GOOD DOCTOR – ON RATIONING RISKS:

The health care reform debate has been low on voices from the medical community.  This week, an influential medical voice emerged from the ranks of President Obama’s own family.  Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a practicing diagnostic radiologist with sub-specialized emphasis in oncology, is the president’s second cousin.  In the Washington Times, Dr. Wolf explained how provisions in Obamacare serve to incentive rationing of care for Medicare patients:

As one example, consider the implications of Obamacare’s financial penalty aimed at your doctor if he seeks the expert care he has determined you need. If your doctor is in the top 10 percent of primary care physicians who refer patients to specialists most frequently – no matter how valid the reasons – he will face a 5 percent penalty on all their Medicare reimbursements for the entire year. This scheme is specifically designed to deny you the chance to see a specialist. Each year, the insidious nature of that arbitrary 10 percent rule will make things even worse as 100 percent of doctors try to stay off that list. Many doctors will try to avoid the sickest patients, and others will simply refuse to accept Medicare. Already, 42 percent of doctors have chosen that route, and it will get worse. Your mother’s shiny government-issued Medicare health card is meaningless without doctors who will accept it.

Dr. Wolf appeared today on Fox & Friends, speaking out of concern for the the well-being of patients.

STUPAK STANDING STRONG AGAINST ABORTION-FUNDING:

Despite speculation early this week regarding a compromise, Rep. Bart Stupak is still standing strong against using healthcare reform as a vehicle for public funding of abortion.  In a frank interview with the Weekly Standard , Rep. Stupak said, “Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise—there’s no such thing.”  He further assured us in Weekly Standard that he won’t fall for the bait and switch strategy (which BDF previously outlined in 3 points):

Stupak affirmed that he will not settle for an agreement to pass the bill now and fix the bill’s problems on abortion later: “If they say ‘we’ll give you a letter saying we’ll take care of this later,’ that’s not acceptable because later never comes.”

As the New York Times reports, Rep. Stupak is not alone:  “Representative Dan Lipinski, Democrat of Illinois, warned party leaders on Tuesday that he would vote against major health care legislation if it does not include tight restrictions on the use of federal money for insurance coverage of abortions.”  Rep. Lipinski’s statement said,

Protecting the sanctity of life is a matter of principle for me and tens of millions of Americans. In addition, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion. Therefore, if a health care bill that fails to prevent federal funding of abortion is brought to the floor of the House, I will vote against it.

NO ONE CAN SAY “YOU LIE” TO CHAIRMAN WAXMAN:

And in a rare moment of honesty, we learn that Chairman Waxman openly admited to Rep. Stupak that “we want to pay for abortions.”  Listen for yourself:

Perhaps the President, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid could learn something from Mr. Waxman about truth in advertising.

Cartoon used with permission by the artist, John Francis Borra.

As Yogi Berra famously said, “It’s like Déjà vu all over again.” While the country awaited President Obama’s promised “new” health care reform proposal, we were instead treated to a speech on Wednesday revealing that his much-anticipated Plan B is simply a re-commitment to Plan A — with A still standing for Abortion at your expense. I’m not going to bore you again with  5 ways the Obama-backed Senate bill promotes public-funding of elective abortions.

Instead, let’s launch from another Yogi Berra line – “It ain’t over till it’s over.” As a matter of public education, the following is a brief summary of exactly how the President hopes to get one over on the American people, and what you should know:

• Point 1: Focus on the House. At the current time, everyone is distracted by the decision of the Administration and leadership to go the reconciliation route in the Senate. But it is important to understand that reconciliation in the Senate doesn’t even come into play until after the House passes the Senate bill exactly as it is right now, and after the President signs the pro-abortion mega-bill into law. Yes, into law. Now proceed to Point 2.  
   
• Point 2: Show me the language. The President and his leadership claim that they will craft language that will “incorporate Republican ideas” and “fix” the Cornhusker deal through language that would later be added through Reconciliation (50 + 1) in the Senate – again, after the Senate bill has passed the House as-is and is signed into law by the President. But the President has not produced any actual legislative language to show us exactly how he would “fix” things. Language is  purportedly being drafted over the next couple of weeks, but no one – not even House Democrats who would have to trust the President and Harry Reid to “fix” the bill after they pass it – have seen any language. It is therefore entirely possible that if Speaker Pelosi jams the Senate bill through the House, it will all be over with the President’s signature. In other words, if the Senate decides to follow their own rules and not use the budget process of reconciliation to pass substantive health care policy, then we would still have the current Senate version of Obamacare as the law of the land. I kid you not.
   
• Point 3: Beware of the Public Option. Don’t forget that there is an active move afoot in the Senate to pass the Pelosicare public option bill that narrowly passed the House in November after she was forced to allow Congressman Stupak and a bipartisan coalition to remove public abortion funding (leaving a host of other pro-life problems in the bill such as incentivized end-of-life rationing). MSNBC reports that 34 Senators have publicly indicated their support for the House public option bill via reconciliation. Therefore, if the House bill were to pass the Senate with the 50 + 1 reconciliation scheme, then it too could head to the President’s desk. And then, well, you guessed it. It’s over.

But at this point it’s far from over. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine claims that “The American people elected this president to get results. They don’t care about the inside baseball.” Really? Perhaps Mr. Kaine should review a few polls showing the historic engagement of the American people on both sides of this issue. While Bioethics Defense Fund neither endorses nor opposes any particular legislation, it is our mission as a public-interest group to educate citizens about said inside baseball.  Because contrary to Mr. Kaine’s opinion, we know that you do care. And that you just might want to stay in the game.

— Dorinda C. Bordlee can be contacted at dbordlee@bdfund.org.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference Contradicts Pelosi’s Claim That Senate Health Bill Doesn’t Fund Abortion
CNSNews, Monday, March 01, 2010
By Edwin Mora

Full article here: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62025

Cantor: Pelosi Can’t Pass a Reconciled Bill 

 [ by Robert Costa]

 While the press focuses on the Senate, Rep. Eric Cantor (R.,Va.) says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) will not be able to muster the votes needed to pass a Senate reconciliation bill in the House. In a new memo, he details how the vote count for Pelosi just isn’t there, thanks to vacancies (3), pro-life walks (at least 12), possible spite from retiring members (e.g. Marion Berry), and potential switches from members whose Democratic senator does so first:

 See the full post here, including a list of possible votes that will switch from yes to no:

  http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjgxNDEzMWFhMzg0OTNhZmZiNjNkYmM3YzMwNzg1MWE=

by Dorinda Bordlee, Senior Counsel of Bioethics Defense Fund, based on a post published on National Review Online’s “Critical Condition“:

President Obama’s  proposal to revive and ‘build off of’ the 2,000-plus page Senate bill should be dubbed ‘Hydra Healthcare’ because every time one of the many heads of this pro-abortion mega-bill gets lopped off, two more seem to grow back. 

The President’s decision not to include Stupak amendment-type language in his proposal means that the current abortion-funding scheme remains in the Senate bill.   Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who lead a bipartisan coalition against abortion funding in the House bill, has called the President’s “new” proposal “unacceptable.” 

The bill passed by the U.S. Senate on Christmas Eve of 2009 (H.R. 3590) contained multiple, far-reaching pro-abortion provisions.  Here is a quick glance at four of the problems in the Obama-backed Senate bill that the President’s proposal leaves untouched:

— Abortion tax:  The Senate bill requires each American purchasing a health plan in the Exchange to make a separate payment to the insurer every month, solely to pay for other people’s abortions. 

— Subsidizing abortion plans: the Senate’s language on tax credits allows subsidies for health plans that cover elective abortions, against the policy of the Hyde amendment and other longstanding federal laws.

— Healthcare Rights of Conscience: The Stupak codification of the Hyde/Weldon conscience protection provision is not included, meaning that pro-life health care workers would not have the full protection of the law against discrimination or dismissal.

— School-based Health Clinics and Abortion Referrals:  The Senate bill says that abortions cannot be “performed” in school-based health clinics, but there is no language to prevent school clinics from referring our teens for abortion or even helping minors make arrangements to go across state lines to avoid parental-involvement laws.

But there is one abortion provision in the current Senate bill that the President did propose to amend, and it’s this:

  — Increased Direct Funding of Abortion in Community Health Centers:  While the current Senate bill authorizes and appropriates $7 billion for services at “community health centers” (which would include Planned Parenthood clinics), the President’s new proposal increases that appropriation to $11 billion.  A clear explanation of why the Hyde amendment does not prevent direct use of these billions of dollars for elective abortions is provided by Douglas Johnson of NRLC.

 The voice of Ronald Reagan seems to echo from beyond . . . “There you go again.”

Note:  The Obama administration has not released actual legislative language for his proposals that are designed to “supplement” the current Senate bill.  The above analysis is based on the current text of the Senate bill that the President is attempting to revive, and the summaries of his proposals provided on the White House website.

This information is provided by Bioethics Defense Fund for purposes of public education, and not for the passage or defeat of any particular legislation.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Dorinda C. Bordlee
Vice President, Senior Counsel
Bioethics Defense Fund
Human Rights from Beginning to End
dbordlee@bdfund.org

 (504) 231-7234

By Dorinda Bordlee

“We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?”

So wrote Virginia politician John Page to his friend Thomas Jefferson, reflecting on the Revolution shortly after the Declaration of Independence had been published.

These words reflect the authentic hope that rises up within us when Grace manifests itself through human action that is bold and inspired, yet completely unexpected. This centuries-old phrase still rings true, especially as our nation experiences this week of ironies – a game-changing Senate election that pulled the rug out from under proponents of pro-abortion Obamacare followed by the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

On January 19, 2010, the voice of the people rang out with deafening clarity. It came in the form of a historic election of a pickup driving Republican in the liberal state of Massachusetts. With his promise to be the 41st filibuster vote, the election of Senator-elect Scott Brown seems to have miraculously pulled us back from the brink of a government-controlled health care take-over that would have incentivized rationing for seniors, funded elective abortion, and jeopardized healthcare rights of conscience. The allies for life must stay alert and continue to defend against this agenda, but a cataclysmic disaster seems to have been averted, at least for now.

Read the full piece about Scott Brown and the astounding victories of the Culture for Life in our piece posted by The Westchester Institute.

BDF response:  At least Planned Parenthood is candid about abortion funding in the Senate health care bill.  Senator-elect Scott Brown’s historic election makes it virtually impossible for either version of the current bills to get through the Senate.  The attention now turns to the House.  When asked whether the House could pass the Senate bill in order to get it to the President’s desk, pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak replied today “I don’t think it could get a hundred votes.”  For the record, that’s less than half of the votes needed to pass a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Stupak: Abortion loses 10-12 House members

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said he expects about 10 to 12 antiabortion Democrats will vote against the health care bill if it contains the Senate’s abortion language — and that House leaders are counting on switching enough “no” votes to avoid the subject entirely. “They’re saying we can ignore the abortion language provided we can get enough votes, people who voted no and will switch their votes,” Stupak said. “If they get enough, they don’t even have to talk to me—they can roll us on the issue.” About 40 anti-abortion House Democrats supported the health care bill because it included the Stupak amendment. — Kasie Hunt

Used with permission by the artist, John Francis Borra.