Category archives: Abortion

Stupak-Pitts Amendment Speaks Truth to Power

by Chris Gacek

November 20, 2009

There is much gnashing of teeth by abortion supporters over the inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the Speaker Nancy Pelosi health care bill H.R. 3962. Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrat, and Joe Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican, succeeded in amending H.R. 3962 so that no government funds can be used to pay for abortion. Claims that Stupak-Pitts is out of line with current law or that it is unconstitutional are simply false.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment (Stupak-Pitts) combines two principles. First, it contains the core principle of the Hyde Amendment that the government not encourage abortion through direct funding or subsidization of the cost of plans that cover elective abortion. Second, Stupak-Pitts refuses to accept deceptive schemes in which funds deposited into a common pot are claimed to be separate. Stupak-Pitts recognizes the obvious truth that money is fungible. Hence, Stupak does not swallow the deception that government subsidized insurance policies covering abortion do not involve the government in the promotion or encouragement of abortion through subsidies.

Anyone with an ounce of foresight on the Left should have seen this coming. The current principle in federal law a la Hyde is that the United States government does not pay for abortions (with exceptions of mothers life, rape and incest) or pay for the cost of any plan that covers abortion. This principle even carries over to the private plans purchased by government employees. Now, if, as the Democrats want, the government is going to dominate, micro-regulate, and subsidize the nations health care system both government run and privately insured then the question of how the Hyde principle will apply to these new programs arises immediately.

The answer is that Hydes logic runs the gamut of all the new health care expenditures and programs. Therefore, Stupak-Pitts carries Hyde forward and refuses to buy into the accounting gimmicks that would give the Democrats cover for funding abortions. Speaker Pelosi had a choice. She could either allow a vote on Stupaks amendment, or she could accept the defeat of her health care bill. She chose to allow a vote on Stupak-Pitts, and her side lost. To strip Stupak-Pitts from the bill now would be highly dishonest, and, if Stupak-Pitts can count votes, it will lead to the defeat of Obama-Pelosi health care in the House.

As for the claims that Stupak-Pitts is unconstitutional, they are wrong as well.

The major constitutional point here is that the Congress is given wide discretion in deciding how to spend money and fund or not fund certain activities. This is true even if the activity in question rests on the exercise of a constitutional right. The old saw is that merely because there is freedom of the press, the government doesnt have to buy a writer a printing press, paper, and ink. The abortion-promoting members of Congress need to tell us why the government should buy them their equivalent of a printing press.

The argument that Stupak-Pitts violates Establishment Clause principles is absurd. Stupak-Pitts establishes no church or a favored religious organization. It apparently came as a shock to Lynn Woolsey and Diana DeGette that Catholics are allowed to vote and petition their government. While considering whether to import Guy Fawkes Day to the American calendar, they and their acolytes have issued various threats and slanders against the Papists. Such claims probably wont sway Justice Kennedy. Furthermore, you dont have to be a Christian to be pro-life. Even atheists can read ultra-sounds. Ask Bernard Nathanson, a physician and founder of the modern abortion movement whose viewing of fetal ultrasounds led him to reject abortion.

A series of liberal activist constitutional claims are also made against Stupak-Pitts. Equal Protection Clause. Substantive Due Process. Privacy. All the usual suspects. In other words, the gamut of the Were liberals and we dont like this law, so its unconstitutional arguments. Unfortunately for the Stupak opponents, each of these claims could be made against the Hyde Amendment, and the 1980 decision upholding the Hyde Amendment, Harris v. McRae, has stood for 30 years. Furthermore, the public has held constant in its disapproval of government endorsement and promotion of abortion since Hydes first enactment.

Of course, all these arguments are academic in some sense. What matters these days is the amount of raw judicial power that can be exercised by the Supreme Courts judicial activists and policy makers. Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor will vote to overturn Hyde & Stupak. It boils down to Justice Kennedy - - again. Aint life grand in a judicial oligarchy?

They Just Can’t Help It

by Rob Schwarzwalder

November 16, 2009

This shouldn’t be a debate about abortion,”’ says the President’s Senior Advisor David Axelrod. The President himself argues that he and his allies in Congress are not “in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but on the other hand that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices.”

This is sort of like saying that when eating a four-scoop sundae, the dessert really isn’t about ice cream. Abortion is essential to the Democratic approach to health care. Why? Because if, as the great majority of national Democrats believe, abortion is a matter of public moral neutrality, a procedure not unlike the removal of a nasty tumor, it should be funded (or, as an interim step, subsidized) as part of any federal health insurance regime.

After the vote on the Stupak pro-life amendment on November 7, pro-abortion Members of Congress and their allies in the so-called “progressive” movement became apoplectic. “Abortion is healthcare. That’s the whole point,” wrote ultra-feminist and the Left-wing magazine Nation writer Katha Pollitt. Pollitt has made a career as a Left-liberal who actually speaks her mind (example: after 9/11, she wrote that the American “flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war”). Of course, her perspective is warped, but at least she says what she thinks.

And what she thinks seems to be what’s in the heart of the current Administration. Mr. Obama has built a career by stating two opposing views and pretending to find common ground between them. Of course, there is - as he admitted in his speech earlier this year at Notre Dame - no real common ground between the culture of life and the culture of death.

By subsidizing health insurance plans that provide abortion, the US government would be providing funds to companies that would thereby have greater financial freedom to pay for abortion and related services.

Mr. President, we either “restrict women’s choices” by refusing to allow the federal government to subsidize abortion providers, or we subsidize insurance companies that pay for abortion. There is no way around it. Your key allies know it. And, in the integrity of your mind, so do you.

The Fumes of NARAL and Planned Parenthood

by Chris Curry

November 13, 2009

Wednesdays headline in The Hill led with the caption Abortion-rights groups threaten not to fund Rodriquez and Teague. Apparently NARAL and Planned Parenthood are ticked because Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas) and Congressman Harry Teague (D-N.M.) voted in support of the Stupak Amendment which removed abortion funding from the health care bill (1).

Very few news organizations are reporting on the divide that is developing within the Democratic Party. Many Congressional Democrats, who firmly believe in the federal funding of abortion, are out for the blood of those who exercised a vote according to their conscience. This shouldnt be terribly surprising since these pro-abortion House Members are also interested in taking away the conscience rights of doctors, but I digress.

Still, there is a huge overlooked question that begs to be asked. Why is a charitable organization which receives federal funds allowed to make financial contributions to candidates who vote for giving federal funds back to the organization? Let alone threaten to remove the base of support when the candidate votes their conscience. Does anyone see anything wrong with this circular problem? Planned Parenthood receives over $350 million annually in federal funds (2). Through this legislation, they were lobbying to up the ante significantly, thus lining their fat pockets even more. And, although the Stupak Amendment passed the House for now, they are not done with that fight!

While NARAL doesnt receive federal funds, their business practices are questionable as they fail to meet the Better Business Standards for Charity Accountability (3). Considering NARALs work got its start through the successful use of enormous lies, this is simply par for the course (4). Every time NARAL comments on issues like these, the public should be reminded of their questionable practices and roots

When will this outrageous behavior end? Who are elected officials representing: the people who vote for them; or the special interests who pay for slick advertising to sway the voters? Okay, so that question is too easy.

Every time Planned Parenthood opens their mouth on an issue like this, why arent reporters calling into question the dog Planned Parenthood has in this hunt?

Why isnt Planned Parenthood being investigated? As previously mentioned, they make campaign contributions to Members of Congress who reciprocate through the funding of Planned Parenthood. Their staff have been recorded numerous times counseling underage girls who admit to being impregnated by adults. Instead of reporting a crime of rape, they provide abortion counseling support and encourage the girls to conceal the age and specifics of their rapists (5).

Reporters need to stop scratching their heads and the surface of these stories. Weve heard it before and Ill shout it again, its time they dig deep, accurately investigate and report on these issues. Weve come a long way from the days of Murrow. Even worse, weve come even further from a time when our elected truly represented the electorate.

(1) Abortion-rights groups threaten not to fund Rodriguez and Teague http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/67473-threat-to-rodriguez-teague-from-abortion-rights-groups-

(2) Planned Parenthood Annual Report: Abortion Totals, Government Funding Increase http://www.lifenews.com/nat4978.html

(3) BBB Wise Giving Report for

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/human-services/naral-pro-choice-america-foundation-in-washington-dc-507

(4) Lies and Fraud of Roe v. Wade: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53872

(5) Live Action Films: http://liveaction.org/

MSNBC Mid-Morning Host Calls Us “Liars,” “Crazy,” and to “Go Away”

by JP Duffy

November 10, 2009

This morning MSNBC Host Dylan Ratigan attacked my colleague Cathy Ruse after she pointed out how the health care bill (before the adoption of the Stupak amendment) forces Americans to pay for elective abortions Mr. Ratigan called her a “liar” and even said she should just “go away.” Mr. Ratigan should certainly work to improve his on-air manners, but he should also do a better job of getting his facts straight. Both NPR and Politifact agree on what the Stupak amendment will do. Their analysis places the facts on Cathy’s side.

The Stupak amendment maintains the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for benefits packages that include abortion. It clarifies that individuals, both those who receive affordability credits and those who do not, can with their own funds purchase separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans that do not receive government subsidies may still offer elective abortions.

Send Mr. Ratigan your thoughts via Twitter.

UPDATE: Media Research Center takes up the segment: MSNBCs Ratigan Accuses Conservative Guest of Lying about Government-Funded Abortion

Family Research Council Praises Passage of Pro-life Amendment to Health Care Bill

by JP Duffy

November 8, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 7, 2009

CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Maria Donovan, (866) FRC-NEWS

Washington, D.C.- Today, the House of Representatives passed the Stupak, Pitts, Kaptur, Dahlkemper, Smith, Ellsworth and Lipinski amendment to the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (H.R. 3962) The amendment maintains the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for benefits packages that include abortion. It clarifies that individuals, both those who receive affordability credits and those who do not, can with their own funds purchase separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans that do not receive government subsidies may still offer elective abortions.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement concerning the amendment’s passage:

This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families. We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion. I congratulate the bipartisan coalition that for months has worked to ensure that abortion is not covered in the bill.

Since prior to last year’s election Family Research Council has been working towards true health care reform that protects life, freedom and families. We supported efforts to ensure the legislation will not be paid for by the lives of future generations. We thank Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) for standing with more than 70% of Americans who morally object to funding abortion with their hard earned dollars.

Unfortunately, H.R. 3962 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. The Speaker’s bill still allows rationing of health care for seniors, raises health costs for families, mandates that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, encourages counseling for assisted suicide in some states, does not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seeks to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen’s lives. Speaker Pelosi is using the guise of health care reform to push her version of social engineering onto American taxpayers. Additionally, the legislation would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations.

FRC will work hard to ensure pro-life provisions remain intact as the bill goes through the legislative process, and will work tirelessly to ensure the legislation is more friendly to families than the current bill.”

-30-

The New Spin on Abortion Funding

by Rob Schwarzwalder

November 8, 2009

Democrats are going out of their way to argue that the Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion is an effort to enact new restrictions on abortion itself. Julie Rovner of NPR, a journalist no less, argued today that the pro-life Members of Congress seeking to prevent Uncle Sam from paying for abortions are trying to impose new limits on access to abortion. Ms. Rovner seems to be taking a line from Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, who in today’s NY Times is quoted as saying, with reference to her colleague Bart Stupak’s amendment, Theres no way at the end of the day were going to support these kinds of further restrictions on abortion.

This is a desperate misrepresentation of the facts. The bipartisan pro-life effort to maintain existing federal restrictions on federal funding of abortion is nothing more than an attempt to sustain existing policy. It does nothing to “further restrict” abortion.

Those who advocate for unrestricted access to federally financed abortion on demand are getting more outraged by the minute. By affirming the sanctity of life, the Members of Congress who are standing their ground against federal financing of abortion are saying “yes” to the Creator of natal personhood. For this, they deserve our enduring thanks. And let’s pray for Ms. Schakowsky and her fellow advocates of the culture of death, that the God Who made and loves them will draw them into the light of life itself.

How the Health Bill Funds Abortion

by David Christensen

November 6, 2009

The Health Care bill will fund abortion because of the Capps amendment. The supposed “Ellsworth” compromise would not prevent the public option from funding abortion, but would have the exact same effect of government funding of abortion. Because of confusing accounting gimmicks, this flow-chart may help you understand how the public option would fund elective abortion:

How the Health Bill Funds Abortion

[Click here for a full-size PDF version of the graphic]

But It Was Just a Fetus … Wasn’t It?

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 28, 2009

Today in Utah, a 21 year-old man was sentenced to five years in prison for, according to the Associated Press, “beating a pregnant (17 year-old) girl to try to cause a miscarriage” after she paid him $150 to do so.

The girl was seven months pregnant. Aaron Harrison, the criminal convicted of assaulting her, beat her stomach and, bizarrely, even bit her on the neck to induce a miscarriage. And although Harrison had pled guilty to “second-degree felony attempted murder, which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison .. District Judge A. Lynn Payne instead sentenced him under Utah’s anti-abortion statute, saying a charge of third-degree ‘attempted killing of an unborn child’ better fit the facts of the case.”

I don’t think words can describe the kind of depraved conduct you entered into in trying to take the life of a child,” Judge Payne said to Harrison from the bench.

The mother of the baby, born healthy in August, is now seeking custody of the child she tried to have killed.

Judge Payne’s words ring like a bell: “The life of a child.” At seven months, the child is almost fully developed; it’s eyelids are opening and closing at this stage, with its brain functioning and its heart beating. All that really needs to happen prior birth is weight increase.

The potency of medical knowledge has pushed proponents of abortion on demand out of the realms of reason and science. The humanness and personhood of the unborn child are indisputable by any measurable, objective standard.

It was President Obama who said, during his one-on-one with Rick Warren last summer, that determining when human life begins is “above my paygrade.” Perhaps the President could read Judge Payne’s remarks and the facts of this wrenching case and let us know if his current salary is sufficient for him to decide.

NARAL Petition Supports Biblical Account Abraham and Sarah

by Tony Perkins

October 23, 2009

The radical National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) began circulating a petition this week attacking the Family Research Council for its opposition to the government takeover of healthcare. That of course is nothing new; theyve been attacking us for months. But what is new, is that the petition suggests NARAL may actually support the biblical account of Sarah giving birth to Isaac when she was over 90 years old:

Anti-choice extremists at the Family Research Council are launching an outrageous media and lobbying campaign claiming that Congress’ health-care reform bills will deny seniors the medical care they need in order to pay for abortion.

On second thought, suggesting NARAL supports Scripture might be a stretch. But I am sure that if Planned Parenthood and NARAL had been around in Sarahs day they would have been right there, on our dime, helping Sarah end the life of her baby.

Archives