Crucial vote on health care TOMORROW

by Mary Harned on November 20, 2009

At 8:00 p.m. tomorrow night, the Senate is expected to vote on cloture on the Motion to Proceed to debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s pro-abortion health care bill.  Sixty Senators’ votes are needed for the bill to move forward.  While this vote has been touted by pro-abortion lawmakers as merely “procedural” in nature, according to the Congressional Research Service, over 97% of bills that receive a cloture vote to begin debate ultimately pass the Senate. 

That means a vote for this motion equals a vote for the bill.  Right now, the bill lacks the strong Stupak-Pitts Amendment language that was added to the House health care reform bill.  The Stupak-Pitts Amendment mirrors the Hyde Amendment, in that it prohibits federal dollars from paying for elective abortions or subsidizing insurance plans that cover elective abortions.

See article below:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/40812-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

CRS Report Shows Most Bills Subject to Cloture Pass

By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
Nov. 19, 2009, 10:25 p.m.

A new study of Senate voting patterns shows the chamber has approved more than 97 percent of all bills subject to a cloture motion to begin debate — a finding that could undercut Democratic efforts to paint a key health care vote on Saturday as procedural.

According to a new Congressional Research Service report, since 1999 the Senate has approved 97.6 percent of all bills when lawmakers first voted to begin debate.

Under Senate rules, debate on a bill cannot begin unless there is a motion to do so. Unless all 100 Members agree to begin debate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) must first file for cloture on the motion to move to the bill — a vote that requires at least 60 votes.

According to CRS, between 1999 and 2008 there were 41 times when lawmakers first voted for a cloture motion to begin debate, and the Senate ultimately passed the bill on 40 occasions. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the lead opponents of the Democratic-led health care reform effort, requested the report.

While technically a procedural vote, the minority party has used the 60-vote threshold over the years as a way to block legislation they dislike. More significantly, these sorts of votes have figured heavily in election fights, most famously when Republicans accused Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) of flip flopping during his 2004 presidential campaign after he tried to explain how through a procedural motion he had voted for a supplemental appropriations bill before he voted against it.

In the health care reform debate, with Reid struggling to find 60 votes in support of the actual bill, he has sought to assure his Members that the vote is simply a procedural vote that will simply allow them to begin the debate — and that it will not lock them into a final yes vote on the underlying legislation.

But Republicans have repeatedly argued that Saturday’s vote to begin debate is tantamount to voting for the bill. GOP operatives have vowed that if wavering moderate Democrats Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) vote for the cloture motion Saturday, they will use the vote against them. Lincoln is particularly vulnerable because she is up for re-election in 2010 and is being targeted by Republicans. All three Senators have been reluctant to say whether they are willing to vote for the cloture motion, although Democratic aides Thursday were cautiously optimistic that they would be able to muster the 60 votes needed.

Democrats dismissed the report, saying that while the approval rate may appear high, Republicans have repeatedly used procedural motions and other tactics to stymie debate of legislation.

“If a vote for the motion to proceed should be considered a vote for the underlying bill, why are they making us jump through these unnecessary hoops of holding them?” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Wednesday. “If it’s all the same to them, let’s just go straight to an up-or-down vote on the bill itself. Anything else is a waste of time.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn

{ 0 comments }

Washington, DC – Today, in a vote of 59-39, the U.S. Senate confirmed pro-abortion federal judge David Hamilton as an appellate court judge.

Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “Americans United for Life believes that judges should uphold Constitutional restrictions on abortion. As a District Court judge, Hamilton promoted his radical pro-abortion agenda. His promotion to the Seventh Circuit will give him jurisdiction over court cases addressing life issues from Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin which is of serious concern to the pro-life community.”

For seven years, through a series of rulings in A Woman’s Choice v. Newman, 904 F. Supp. 1434 (S.D. Ind. 1995), he blocked the enforcement of Indiana’s informed consent law Public Law 187. Public Law 187 requires that women be given information about the procedure and other alternatives in person at least 18 hours before the abortion is performed. Reversing Judge Hamilton’s rulings, the Court of Appeals noted the law was “materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the Fifth Circuit in Barnes.” Judge Hamilton ignored clear precedent in favor of his own abortion agenda.

To view AUL’s in depth analysis of Judge Hamilton’s record on judicial activism and abortion, click here.

To view AUL’s score letter on Judge Hamilton, click here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn

{ 0 comments }

Senate set to vote on activist judge David Hamilton today

by Anna Franzonello on November 19, 2009

The confirmation of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals would be another step away from common ground by the President and the Democratic Senate.  As a District Court Judge, his decisions are subject to review by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and they reversed him often.

The Court of Appeals ruled Judge Hamilton abused his judicial discretion in obstructing the right of the people of Indiana to enact constitutional pro-life legislation. For seven years, through a series of rulings in A Woman’s Choice v. Newman, 904 F. Supp. 1434 (S.D. Ind. 1995), he blocked the enforcement of Indiana’s informed consent law. Reversing Judge Hamilton’s rulings, the Court of Appeals noted the law was “materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the Fifth Circuit in Barnes.” Judge Hamilton ignored clear precedent. He tied up the court system and wasted the citizens of Indiana’s financial resources requiring them to defend a constitutional law.

In his Senate confirmation hearing, Judge Hamilton affirmed his embrace of judicial activism. While Justice Sotomayor rejected the empathy standard during her confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Judge Hamilton used his hearing as an opportunity to reiterate his belief that empathy is “important” in fulfilling the judge’s oath of office. However, empathy for one litigant is injustice to another, for it violates the judge’s obligation to refrain from taking sides in a dispute.

Judge Hamilton’s record and commitment to continue legislating from the bench not only do not warrant a promotion, but warn against it.

Americans United for Life has sent a letter to Senate members expressing our deep concern about a confirmation of Judge David Hamilton to the Court of Appeals.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn

{ 0 comments }

Reid Releases Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill

by Mary Harned on November 19, 2009

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last night unveiled a health care bill which provides for an unprecedented expansion of federally-funded abortion.  The bill includes pro-abortion language and mirrors the false compromise Capps Amendment from the House debate — it allows the public option to include abortion coverage and provides federal subsidies for private plans which cover abortion.   

The principle behind both the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions or subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions.  In the new Senate bill, the abortion language revealed on pages 116 through 124 in Senator Reid’s new health care bill will:

  • Require a plan that covers abortion in every insurance market.  
  • Allow the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions through the public option. 
  • Create new tax-funded subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion. 

Following is the detailed analysis of the abortion provisions in the bill from AUL’s legal team:

Abortion Provisions (beginning on Page 116)

Section 1303(a)(1)

(A) (i) qualified health (private) plans will not be forced to cover abortions; (ii) they can choose to. [Same as Capps]

(B)

(i) Hyde-prohibited abortions;

 (ii) Hyde-permitted abortions (currently rape, incest, life of the mother)

(C) (i)  The secretary may not require the “community health insurance option” (the public option) to include Hyde-prohibited abortions unless

(I) the Secretary ensures compliance with paragraph (2) below;

(II)ensures that through accounting mechanisms federal funds do not pay for abortions and

(III) ensures that the United States does not bear the health insurance risk of coverage of Hyde-prohibited abortions.

[Functionally, this is no different than Capps.  Secretary Sebelius can still include elective abortion in the public option]

(ii)  If a state requires the coverage of Hyde-prohibited abortions in a community health insurance option in the state, the state must ensure accounting mechanisms keep “funds flowing through or from” the option and other federal dollars from paying for defraying the cost of abortions.  The United States shall not bear the insurance risk for covering Hyde-prohibited abortions.

(iii) Nothing in (C) applies to Hyde-permitted abortions.  Hyde-permitted abortions should be covered to the same extent as they are covered under Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

[Same as Capps -- If the Hyde Amendment is ever removed or the exceptions are broadened, then all abortions will be automatically covered by the public option]

(D) (i)(I): At least one plan in each Exchange must provide both Hyde-prohibited and Hyde-permitted abortions.

(II)  At least one plan must NOT offer Hyde-prohibited abortions.

(ii)(I)  The plan under (i)(II) above qualifies if it also does not offer Hyde-permitted abortions.

(II)  If an exchange has more than one insurance market, it must meet the rules in (i) for each market.

[Functionally same as Capps]

Section 1303 (a)(2) [This is the whole segregation / "abortion premium" section -- functionally the same as Capps]

(A) A Qualified Health Plan that chooses to cover Hyde-prohibited abortions cannot use any of the funds attributed to the following sources:

(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code or the advanced payments of the credit available under Section 1412 of this Act;

(ii) Any cost-sharing reductions under Section 1402 of this Act and the amount (if any) of any advance payment of the reduction under Section 1412 of this Act;

(B) Segregation of funds –Qualified Health Plans that choose to cover Hyde-prohibited abortions must segregate out funds equal to the actuarial amount determined under (C) below for all enrollees from the amounts described in (A) above.

(C) (i) The Secretary shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost under a Qualified Health Plan for covering Hyde-prohibited abortions

(ii) The Secretary must:

(I) consider the impact on overall cost of including the coverage;

(II) Estimate such cost as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered;

(III) May not estimate it at less than $1 a month

Section 1303 (a)(3):  Weak conscience protection (doesn’t protect pro-life insurance companies) [No Hyde-Weldon language]

Section 1303(b)(1): No preemption of state laws on abortion

Section 1303(b)(2): 

(A) No preemption of federal laws on
(i) conscience

(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortions

(iii) discrimination on the basis of willingness or refusal to provide abortion,

Section 1303(b)(3):  No effect on federal civil rights laws

Section 1303(c):  Nothing in the act relieves health care providers from being required to provide emergency services as required by state and federal law

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn

{ 0 comments }

China’s Dehumanizing Abortion Policies

by Ioana Ardelean on November 18, 2009

As President Obama made his first official visit to China, new information on China’s “one-child policy” surfaced in the media.

In an article published last week, The Washington Post revealed that “monetary incentives and penalties are attached to population targets,” creating what amounts to “bounties on the unborn,” according to a 2009 State Department report. Technically, it is illegal in China to kill a baby, but family- planning imperatives sometimes prevail. Unfortunately, according to the same source, as recently as July, China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission said that the one-child policy “will be strictly enforced as a means of controlling births for decades to come”.

While Chinese officials insist that abortions are voluntary under the one-child policy, the Post’s article informs about recent electronic documentation that shows coerced abortions and involuntary sterilizations are still commonplace in China.

The consequences of these violent and dehumanizing policies are many. Besides killing millions of children, abortions, especially late term abortions, claim the lives of the mothers as well, as evidenced by reports from China. Whatsmore, about 500 women a day commit suicide there. This is the highest rate in the world and it is attributed in part to coercive family planning.

Rep. Chris Smith, a long time champion of Chinese human rights and Chairman of the House Human Rights Committee, also pointed out the atrocious harms to Chinese women, exclaiming that “China’s coercive population control program has imposed unspeakable violence, pain and humiliation on hundreds of millions of Chinese women, many of whom suffer lifelong depression as a consequence.”

Furthermore, China has used abortion for sex-selective purposes because of a traditional (cultural) preference for boys. This has resulted in a tremendous gender imbalance with Chinese men outnumbering Chinese women by 37 million.  In this regard, Smith stated, “As a direct result of the government’s one-child policy, tens of millions of girls are missing today…The lost girls of China is a gendercide.”

While the Post rightfully asserts that “[a]verting our gaze from China’s horrific abuse of women is [a choice],” they neglect to mention the U.S.’s involvement in supporting China’s coercive family planning policies (including coerced abortions and forced sterilizations) is also a “choice.”  The Fiscal Year 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House this past March created an exception to allow unrestricted funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) including their operations in countries (such as China) that force women to abort or to be sterilized.  In approving the spending, 55 U.S. Senators voted to reject Senator Roger Wicker’s attempt to protect U.S. taxpayers from funding coercive abortions through the UNFPA.

In light of President Obama’s emphasis on human rights while in China this week, the U.S. should strongly consider withdrawing U.S. taxpayers’ money from operations funding these dehumanizing policies in China.

Americans United for Life experts have created comprehensive model legislation and policy guides to address these issues. For a copy of the 2010 Coerced Abortions Legislative Guide, please click here.  For the 2010 Legislative Guide on Sex Selective and Genetic Abnormality, please click here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn

{ 0 comments }

On Monday night, the Baltimore City Council, by a vote of 12 to 3, approved an ordinance requiring pregnancy care centers (PCCs) to posts signs indicating that they do not do abortions or provide contraception.  Failure to comply with the ordinance will incur a $150 per day fine.  A proposed amendment to require abortion clinics to post relevant disclaimers was defeated.

In recent years, Maryland has become “ground zero” for attempts by NARAL and other abortion advocates to lodge false accusations about PCCs and to encourage vindictive and unsupported legislative “fixes” to non-existent problems at PCCs.  In 2008, the Maryland legislature considered Senate Bill 690 (and its companion, House Bill 1146) which would have required all state PCCs to inform women that they do not perform abortions and provide “incorrect information” about the negative impact of abortion on women.  Thankfully, this state-wide threat to PCCs was defeated.

However, in addition to the just-approved Baltimore ordinance, Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg recently introduced an ordinance there that would require PCCs to inform women that information and advice that they receive at PCCs is not “medical advice” and does not “establish a doctor-patient relationship.” Moreover, women would be encouraged to go elsewhere for medical advice.  Although claiming that the measure is for “consumer protection,” Trachtenberg admits to buying into pro-abortion rhethoric that PCCs intentionally mislead women.

The situation in Maryland highlights the need for a full understanding of some common pro-abortion “myths” about PCCs:

Myth:  Pregnancy care centers provide medically-inaccurate information to women.
Fact:  PCCs distribute medically accurate information regarding fetal development, pregnancy, and the risks—physical and mental—of abortion.  All information used and distributed by approved providers is medically accurate, recently published, and includes citations to legitimate authorities, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), medical journals, and other reputable sources.

If there is medical debate regarding whether or not abortion carries particular risks (e.g., the abortion-breast cancer link), information on this conflict is brought to the attention of the woman and is not hidden or withheld from her.

Myth:  PCC personnel are poorly or inadequately trained.
Fact:  PCC staff and volunteers are appropriately trained for the services they provide.  Those PCCs that offer ultrasounds and/or other medical services hire medically-trained staff and comply with state and federal regulations regarding licensing and certification.

Myth:  PCCs engage in false advertising, misleading women into believing they provide abortions and abortion counseling.
Fact:  Advertising by PCCs is honest and discloses to women the types of services provided by the centers.  Most PCCs, including those affiliated with national organizations such as Birthright International and CareNet, have strict standards of integrity regarding truth in advertising and require the full disclosure of the types of services provided.

Pregnancy care centers are most often listed under “Abortion Alternatives” in the Yellow Pages or other telephone directories. In many areas, it is the Yellow Pages publisher who determines how to categorize PCCs.  PCCs do not advertise under names such as “Abortion Services.”

Myth:  PCC personnel are judgmental and do not provide a woman with counseling on “all her reproductive care options.”
Fact:  PCCs provide women with compassionate and confidential counseling in a nonjudgmental manner regardless of their pregnancy outcomes.  Women who have used the services of a PCC reported a 98% positive effect, including 71% who had a very positive effect, according to a survey of 630 women conducted by the Wirthlin Group.  Of those women who were aware of PCCs, 87% believed they have a positive impact on the women they serve, including a majority of those who identified themselves as “pro-choice.”

Upon reflection, there is no better indicator of the positive impact that PCCs are having by supporting women emotionally and financially, by protecting women from the adverse health consequences of abortion, and by helping to reduce the number of abortions performed each year than the vitriol directed toward these centers by pro-abortion advocacy groups and individuals. These groups refer to them as “fake centers” and produce and market kits for activists to target and expose pregnancy care centers with negative publicity and protests.  Even they, in their zeal to promote abortion-on-demand, cannot ignore the very real and increasingly powerful impact pregnancy care centers are having on women and on public opinion about abortion. 

For more information about the positive impact of PCCs, see “Pregnancy Care Centers: On the Frontline in the Cause for Life.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn

{ 0 comments }

There have been many recent questions in the press and on Capitol Hill about the scope of the Stupak Amendment added to the House health care reform bill, H.R. 3962, and how it will impact private insurance plans. 

The Stupak Amendment applies the same abortion funding restrictions to programs created by and funded through H.R. 3962 that the Hyde Amendment applies to programs funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill (like Medicaid).  Because the government is expanding its role in paying for health care, the two amendments cannot be identical, word-for-word — the abortion funding restriction must be tailored to fit the new programs.  However, the principle behind both the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak Amendment – that federal dollars do not pay for abortions or subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions – is the same. 

Regarding the subsidization of private insurance, the Hyde Amendment explicitly provides:  “None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.”  The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) also prohibits participating plans from covering abortion (there are no funding mechanisms to segregate “private” premiums from federal dollars).  The Stupak Amendment continues this existing policy. 

To view a side-by-side comparison of the Hyde and Stupak amendments and a memo examining the Stupak Amendment, please see:

http://blog.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Comparision-Chart-b-t-Hyde-and-Stupak.pdf

http://blog.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Stupak-Pitts-Backgrounder.pdf

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn

{ 0 comments }

MSNBC Debate with Dr. Yoest and NARAL’s Nancy Keenan on Dr. Nancy Show

November 12, 2009

addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fblog.aul.org%2F2009%2F11%2F12%2Fmsnbc-debate-with-dr-yoest-and-narals-nancy-keenan-on-dr-nancy-show%2F’;
addthis_title = ‘MSNBC+Debate+with+Dr.+Yoest+and+NARAL%26%238217%3Bs+Nancy+Keenan+on+Dr.+Nancy+Show’;
addthis_pub = ‘MatthewEpp’;

Share and Enjoy:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

Preferral of Charges Against Hasan Need Not and Should Not Preclude Charge for Killing Baby Velez

November 12, 2009

Earlier today, the U.S. Army preferred 13 charges and specifications of premeditated murder against Major Nidal Hasan.  This preliminary step does not and should not preclude the preferral of additional charges including a charge and specification for the killing of the unborn child of one of the victims of the Fort Hood massacre,  Private Francheska [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

CBS Evening News Interview with Dr. Yoest on the Stupak Amendment

November 12, 2009

Watch CBS News Videos Online

addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fblog.aul.org%2F2009%2F11%2F12%2Fcbs-evening-news-interview-with-dr-yoest-on-the-stupak-amendment%2F’;
addthis_title = ‘CBS+Evening+News+Interview+with+Dr.+Yoest+on+the+Stupak+Amendment’;
addthis_pub = ‘MatthewEpp’;

Share and Enjoy:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

Fox News’s Special Report Inteview with Dr. Charmaine Yoest about Abortion in Health Care

November 12, 2009

addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fblog.aul.org%2F2009%2F11%2F12%2Ffox-newss-special-report-inteview-with-dr-charmaine-yoest-about-abortion-in-health-care%2F’;
addthis_title = ‘Fox+News%26%238217%3Bs+Special+Report+Inteview+with+Dr.+Charmaine+Yoest+about+Abortion+in+Health+Care’;
addthis_pub = ‘MatthewEpp’;

Share and Enjoy:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

CNN’s Dana Bash Interviews Dr. Charmaine Yoest about Abortion in Health Care

November 12, 2009

addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fblog.aul.org%2F2009%2F11%2F12%2Fcnns-dana-bash-interviews-dr-charmaine-yoest-about-abortion-in-health-care%2F’;
addthis_title = ‘CNN%26%238217%3Bs+Dana+Bash+Interviews+Dr.+Charmaine+Yoest+about+Abortion+in+Health+Care’;
addthis_pub = ‘MatthewEpp’;

Share and Enjoy:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

Seeking Justice for the 14th Victim at Fort Hood

November 12, 2009

There are, of course, many unnamed victims of the attack at Fort Hood.  Spouses, parents, children, siblings, friends.  Each left to suffer and question why, on American soil, their loved one’s life was violently ended.
But there was another victim that has been frequently overlooked: the unborn child of soldier Francheska Velez.  When Hasan took Velez’s [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

MA Attorney General Reveals Willingness to Protect Abortion At Any Price

November 12, 2009

Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Martha Coakley— a current Democrat candidate for the late Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat—strongly criticized the House health care bill for prohibiting federal funding of abortions.  The Boston Globe reported her saying that “fighting for a women’s access to abortion was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its [other] [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

The Stupak Amendment to H.R.3962 — Maintaining Existing Law

November 11, 2009

Introduction
While pro-abortion groups claim that the Stupak Amendment, added to H.R. 3962 by a vote of 240-194, with 64 Democrats voting in favor of the amendment, is broader than existing federal law, they are incorrect.  In reality, the Stupak Amendment, which ensures that funds authorized and appropriated through the bill will not pay for abortions or [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

H.R. 3962, the Health Care Reform Bill, Passes the House

November 7, 2009

On Nov. 7, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act by a vote of 220-215.  One Republican, Joseph Cao (R-LA), voted in favor of the bill.  The bill will incorporate the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which bans use of federal funding for abortion and prohibits the public option from covering abortion [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

Republican substitute bill fails

November 7, 2009

On Nov. 7, 2009, the House defeated the Republican health care reform substitute bill by a vote of 176 to 258.

addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fblog.aul.org%2F2009%2F11%2F07%2Frepublican-substitute-bill-fails%2F’;
addthis_title = ‘Republican+substitute+bill+fails’;
addthis_pub = ‘MatthewEpp’;

Share and Enjoy:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

Stupak-Pitts Amendment Vote

November 7, 2009

On Nov. 7, 2009, the House passed the Stupak-Pitts amendment by a vote of 240-194. 64 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment, and one Republican, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), voted present.
List of Dems voting Yes include:
Altmire, Baca, Barrow, Berry, Bishop (GA), Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Childers, Cooper, Costa, Costello, Cuellar, Dahlkemper, Davis [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

Quick Summary of Stupak-Pitts Amendment Debate on the House Floor

November 7, 2009

Statements are paraphrased.
Stupak: Capps Amendment is the most direct assault on Hyde since 1997.
DeGette: Capps Amendment is a compromise that does not spend $1 federal dollar on abortion. Requirement for supplemental insurance is offensive to women
Pitts: The public does not support federal funding of abortion. Current law prevents fed. dollars from paying for abortion and [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

Boehner states that three Chairmen will not support Stupak-Pitts amendment, if passed, in conference agreement

November 7, 2009

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) stated on the House floor that all three Chairmen of the Committees of jurisdiction, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee George Miller (D-CA), and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel (D-NY) refused to offer assurances that [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →

Anti-Life Concerns in H.R. 3962

November 7, 2009

The bill being debated right now in the House, H.R. 3962, contains several problematic anti-life provisions. 
Below is AUL’s legal analysis of the abortion provisions in the bill, as well as an analysis of the conscience protection, Comparative Effectiveness Research, and End-of-life provisions in the bill.
I. Abortion
The House health care bill, H.R. 3962 includes the same [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Furl
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
Read the full article →