Changing Law to Protect Human Life, State by State

David Gibson is at it again with more misrepresentations and distractions.

First, Gibson cites an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that notes abortion rates continued to decline in Massachusetts after the state enacted its health care reform in 2006.  However, the article tells us little about how enacting universal health care on the federal level will affect national abortion rates.  Among things missing is the fact that there is no national data beyond 2006 that would permit us to compare Massachusetts’ abortion rate to other states.  Even reading the NEJM article in the light most favorable to the author, the most that could be claimed is that national health care reform would not raise abortion rates. 

Gibson also references an article by T.R. Reid claiming universal health care itself lowers abortion rates.  However, the statistics Reid relies on to stake his claim are both inaccurate and incomplete. The most recent data available, from 2005, reported by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control are 19.4 and 15, respectively.  These figures put the United States on par with the abortion rates for Canada and Great Britain – universal health care nations listed by Reid – and are actually lower than other government-run health care countries that Reid neglects to mention, such as Australia and Sweden.

While abortion rates are declining in the United States, they are rising in parts of Europe – including Great Britain.  While these nations have not altered their laws on health care coverage, many have liberalized their abortion laws, suggesting the latter is what drives abortion rates.

In addition, a Guttmacher Institute literature review released in 2009 shows strong consensus that abortion rates are reduced when public funding is restricted.  The review cites 20 academic studies documenting this relationship and only four that found the results of public-funding inconclusive. 

Finally, it is nothing more than a distraction to note, as Gibson does, that an organization that has “Catholic” in its name, or is comprised of Catholics, supports the bill.  An organization’s support for a bill, regardless of any religious affiliation, does not change the plain language of the bill.  The Senate bill violates the language of the Hyde Amendment and would, against the will of 70% of Americans, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, allow federal funds to pay for abortion.

Implicitly underlying all of Gibson’s arguments is the faulty idea that you cannot have universal health care without abortions.  However, the government can choose to provide universal health care without accepting the false notion that abortion is health care – a point proved in November when the House passed its bill with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment’s funding restrictions.

{ 0 comments }

In a “Dear Colleague” letter provided to other members of the House today, Rep. Kildee provides the following explanation for why the abortion language in the Senate health care reform bill will not prevent him from supporting the bill – he is “convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde Amendment.”

Unfortunately, Rep. Kildee is wrong.  While the Senate bill does not alter the Hyde Amendment itself, the Hyde Amendment will not apply to the new funding in the Senate bill.  Further, the Senate bill allows part of what is explicitly forbidden by Hyde, namely, federal subsidization of insurance plans that cover abortions.  We have provided a detailed comparison of the Hyde Amendment, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment (added to the now-abandoned House health care reform bill), and the Senate abortion-funding language.  This analysis shows that while the abandoned House language mirrored the Hyde amendment, the Senate language is a radical departure from existing law.

Rep. Kildee also references a “conscience clause” in the Senate bill.  Yes, the Senate bill includes conscience language; however, the conscience clause is narrow in that it does not prohibit any government entity or program (federal, state, or local) from discriminating against health care providers that do not want to participate in abortions.

Rep. Kildee notes that the Senate bill allows a state to ban insurance plans that include abortion from participating in its Exchange.  However, this changes the status quo from one where the federal government does not consider abortion to be “health care,” to one where it does and now burdens a state to take affirmative action not to fund insurance plans that cover abortions within its borders.  Even that affirmative action by a state would still not protect its citizens from having their federal tax dollars applied to pro-abortion plans in other states that do not similarly “opt-out.”

Rep. Kildee writes he disagrees that the Senate bill would lead to abortions being performed at community health centers.  However, there are no restrictions on the provision of abortion services for community health centers in the Federally Qualified Health Center authorizing statute. In fact, groups such as the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project strongly advocate for the inclusion of abortion services in community health centers as part of providing “primary care” and preventive services.

The Hyde amendment’s restrictions on abortion funding only apply to funds appropriated through the LHHS Appropriations bill and to funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated through the LHHS appropriations bill.  The Senate bill self-appropriates the $7 billion for CHCs, and the bill does not specifically provide that the new funds will be housed in a trust fund that is funded by the LHHS appropriations bill, only that it will be transferred to HHS.  Funds under the Senate bill that are merely transferred to HHS are not covered by Hyde.

Therefore, there is no guarantee that the funds will be covered by the Hyde amendment.  To prohibit the use of these funds for abortions, the Department of Health and Human Services will have to apply existing regulations, referenced by Rep. Kildee in his letter, to the funding, and those regulations will have to withstand the scrutiny of courts.  Given the current pro-abortion administration and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ staunch pro-abortion stance during her time as governor of Kansas, as well as courts’ historical inclinations to read abortion coverage and funding into statutes that do not explicitly exclude it, no one can be confident these funds will not pay for abortions.

Rep. Kildee does not mention another abortion-related concern with the bill.   Under the Mikulski amendment to the bill, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has the power to require private insurance plans to include abortion coverage under the guise of “preventive care.”  In other words, an administrative agency could possibly use its mandate authority to require plans to cover abortions – nothing in the bill prevents it.

Rep. Kildee claims that a vote for this bill does not diminish his pro-life record.  However, a vote for this bill is a vote for the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.  It is a vote for the federal government’s acceptance of abortion as health care, in clear contradiction to longstanding federal law and policy.

{ 2 comments }

We have a Bill…

Health care reform efforts are in full swing this week for the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives. Taking her cue from the President, Speaker Pelosi is attempting to paint health care reform as a done deal, in hopes of securing the votes of Members who are inclined to vote “No.”

The President’s “new” health care reform proposal, which has now been merged with his student loan initiative, is currently expected to take the form of a “reconciliation bill,” or a collection of amendments to the bill that the Senate passed on December 24, 2009.   AUL is opposed to the Senate bill’s abortion provisions, which do not adequately prevent taxpayer funding for abortion or subsidization of insurance plans that cover abortions.

In order to send health care reform to President Obama’s desk for his signature, the House must pass both the Senate-passed bill and the reconciliation bill, and upon passage, send the reconciliation bill to the Senate where Senator Reid would only need to secure 51 votes under the special reconciliation process.

Here’s where all the fun begins. According to Speaker Pelosi, “The bill is locked down . . . We’re just waiting for the Congressional Budget Office [to score the bill].”

But, a quote from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), author of the Stupak amendment, the amendment to the now-abandoned House bill which would have prohibited the use federal funds for abortion services, suggests otherwise. Rep. Stupak claims that “there is a lot of ‘arm-twisting’ to attract votes, adding that leadership officials are asking members what they want in the yet-to-be-released reconciliation package to secure their votes.”

Lending credibility to Stupak’s account of the action (in addition to the Speaker’s lack of credibility) is that House members have been informed that the current version of the reconciliation bill – the version reported out of the House Budget Committee on March 15, 2010 –  is far from the final version of the bill. Members can expect to see the “real” version of the reconciliation bill only as the Rules Committee begins consideration of the bill in the upcoming days. It’s anyone’s guess what ends up in the House reconciliation bill.

We have the Votes….

Speaker Pelosi has also stated:  “I have no intention of not passing this bill.”

We learned in English class that double negative makes a positive, but it seems here that the opposite may ultimately be true. While Speaker Pelosi “intends” to pass a healthcare bill, her Democratic whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said, “We don’t have (the votes) as of this morning.”

In addition, according to Rep. Jason Altmire, Democratic leadership is “calling the hardnosed people…who have put out firm statements saying no . . . and . . . they wouldn’t be doing that if they were anywhere close” [to having enough votes to pass the bill].

The Slaughter Solution…

Finally, and most telling, Speaker Pelosi has stated “Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill.”  As a result of this not so surprising fact, Pelosi and Chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter (D-NY) are considering a new procedural option for passing the Senate bill. The procedure, which has been termed the “Slaughter Solution,” would involve incorporating the Senate bill into the Rule for the reconciliation bill, thereby “deeming” the Senate bill passed when Members vote on the underlying Rule for the reconciliation bill. The practical effect of this solution is the Members will not actually vote on the Senate bill. They will only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. Regardless of the form of the vote, AUL will score against any vote that members take on passage of the Senate bill and its harmful abortion provisions.

{ 0 comments }