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.

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.”

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] aims.”  

Apparently, AG Coakley is willing to compromise all for a women’s access to abortion—despite its inherent and realized harms to women.  In her opinion, access to abortion trumps the possibility of health care reform, but more importantly constitutionally-protected speech.  AG Coakley is the same AG who interpreted the Massachusetts Buffer Zone Law as criminalizing the mere presence of pro-life advocates around abortion clinics.  In her interpretation of the Act and guidance to law enforcement, she unconstitutionally silences any expression of opposition to abortion within a 35-foot radius around “reproductive health care” facilities. 

In relation to health care, Coakley says she will not compromise on abortion rights.  She makes evident that nothing is of more importance to her than protecting mere access to abortion (as opposed to women’s health and safety).   She criticizes fellow Democrats for not being principled on the issue of abortion, claiming that they are “selling one set of constitutional rights for another.” 

What she seems to forget (or it simply does not bother her) is she willingly “sold” explicit First Amendment rights for the Court-declared abortion right.  It is a good thing she is not expressing these views within 35 feet of an abortion clinic in MA, otherwise she would be handed a “go to jail “ card.   But then again, she would not have to say a word.  If she simply put on the abortion clinic’s volunteer vest and escorted women into the clinic for an abortion, the law exempts her and her viewpoint—actions speak louder than words. 

AG Coakley makes very clear she will use her position and power to promote abortion at any price.

On Tuesday we reported that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) would be considering whether to once again delay implementation of the Illinois parental notification law.  For a short while on Wednesday, pro-lifers felt victorious: rather than further delay enforcement, as we expected, the IDFPR allowed the law to go into effect.

Unfortunately, the ACLU was able to convince a state court later Wednesday afternoon that the parental notification law is unconstitutional under the state constitution—despite the fact that abortion itself was still illegal in Illinois at the time the constitution was put into place.

So once again, minors in Illinois are left unprotected from the harms of abortion, and parents are left helpless and without knowledge when abortionists perform procedures on their daughters that carry substantial short-term and long-term physical and psychological risks.

But the ACLU’s claims, and the state court’s acceptance of their false claims to date, will be potentially disastrous to all women in Illinois—not just minors.  What the ACLU is arguing is that any commonsense regulation of abortion is unconstitutional under the Illinois constitution.

Pro-abortion forces were unsuccessful this year in passing a state Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) in Illinois.  Had FOCA passed, it would have enshrined abortion on demand into Illinois law, making it nearly impossible to protect women through informed consent laws, parental notification laws, or abortion clinic regulations.

So the ACLU has apparently shifted its strategy.  Rather than working through the legislature—where such decisions belong—the ACLU is using the court system in Illinois to block a law that the majority of Americans and Illinoisans desire.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found a Pittsburg ordinance restricting access to public areas around abortion clinics unconstitutional.  More specifically, the court held the ordinance to be “insufficiently tailored” because it “burdens substantially more speech than necessary” to achieve the City’s stated interest—to prevent “harassment and obstruction of entrances” to hospitals and medical clinics. 

The Pittsburg ordinance combined a “bubble zone” and a “buffer zone.”  The bubble zone extended 100 feet from the entrance of any hospital, medical office or clinic—including public sidewalks—and prohibited anyone from approaching another person within 8 feet without consent to pass a leaflet or handbill, display a sign or engage in oral protest.  The buffer zone essentially cordoned off a 15-foot zone from the entrance of a hospital or health care facility prohibiting anyone to congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate. 

The Court of Appeals found the zones to be constitutional when considered independent of each other, but when the ordinance combined both zones it overburdened protected speech.  It remanded the case for the City to decide which zone it preferred and directed the District Court to enjoin enforcement of the other zone. 

In making its ruling, the Third Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision involving a similar Colorado Statute, as well as, the First Circuit’s decisions involving bubble zone ordinances around Reproductive Health Care Facilities in Massachusetts.

In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a similar 100-ft bubble zone in Colorado finding the statute a permissible content-neutral time, place and manner regulation—making it significantly easier for governments to simply forbid free speech in select public areas.  In doing so, the Court failed to call a spade a spade—or in this case a content-based regulation content-based.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics have lobbied local and state governments to pass these “bubble zone” ordinances under the governments’ public safety interest.  Asserting an interest in safe access to “healthcare” (meaning safe access to abortions), these ordinances attempt to restrict the presence of pro-life advocates and all communicative efforts by them around abortion clinics.

These ordinances criminalize any discussion of abortion outside abortion clinics.  They prohibit peaceful demonstrations and they eliminate any effective means to discuss the harms of abortion at the location these harms occur.  In application, they prevent effective sidewalk counseling and significantly hinder the communication of abortion alternatives to women who need and want the information the most.  These laws permit only one viewpoint to reach women entering abortion clinics—the pro-abortion position and those enacting them know it.

Abortion advocates simply cannot win on the merits of their arguments, so they employ tactics to prohibit or restrict the expression of views opposing abortion.  And unfortunately, they are finding some success in pursuing these  “bubble zone” ordinances across the country and in the courts. 

The courts have refused to see these ordinances for what they are—an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints and prohibit the expression of dissent to abortion. Until the courts are willing to recognize the content and viewpoint discrimination occurring through bubble zone ordinances, abortion advocates will continue to employ this new weapon of choice to unconstitutionally silence opposition to abortion.  

Once again the law surrounding abortion seems to require special exceptions to protect the abortion industry from thoughtful and full debate of the harms it causes to women and their unborn children.

A woman is far more likely to choose life if she sees an ultrasound of her unborn child, which is why AUL has long promoted laws requiring abortion clinics to give clients the opportunity to view their ultrasound. Now, it appears that an ultrasound can change the heart of an abortion-clinic director as well. Last week, Abby Johnson, the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas–which was the first clinic protested by the pro-life group 40 Days for Life–quit her job after watching an ultrasound of an abortion in progress.

LifeSiteNews reports:

The director of the Texas Planned Parenthood abortion mill where the 40 Days for Life campaign began has resigned, saying she experienced a conversion after watching an ultrasound video of a child being killed by abortion.

“I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it,” said Abby Johnson in an interview with local news network KBTX 3.

Johnson ’s change of heart was so dramatic that she reached out to befriend the organizer of the 40 Days for Life protest–a move that has led to a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood. No doubt the nation’s largest abortion chain is none too pleased at what its former employee is revealing about its pressuring her to bring in more abortion clients to boost its bottom line.

Johnson had been affiliated with Bryan’s Planned Parenthood facility for eight years, and worked as its director for two. She said she began to feel uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood’s business philosophy after the organization, suffering from the economic downturn, told her to try to bring more abortions in the door. “The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.

Thanks to the prayer, educational efforts, and activism of pro-lifers, the truth of the evil of abortion reached a woman who was completely immersed in the abortion industry. This is a story that should give hope to everyone in the pro-life movement.

RELATED: As the health care reform debate rages, learn how you can help your friends, family, and legislators understand that real health care respects life.

Minors in Illinois have been unprotected from the harms of abortion for decades.  The legislature passed a parental notice law in 1995—a law substantially similar to the 36 other state laws requiring either parental notice or consent.  But of course, the ACLU had to step in and challenge the law.  And until the Seventh Circuit (finally) lifted an injunction against the law this summer, the law had been unenforceable.

You would think that would be the end of it.

But instead, the ACLU filed a separate challenge last month in state court.  Same law, same attorneys, different court.  In any other area of law, it should be an open and shut case—the law has already been litigated, a court already issued its opinion, and the ACLU lost.  But this isn’t any other area of law—it’s related to abortion.

We knew the ACLU—and potentially the state of Illinois—was up to something sneaky.  That suspicion has been confirmed.

When the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion this summer, it gave abortionists 90 days to come into compliance with the new law.  That brings us to today—Tuesday, November 3, 2009.  The law should go into effect today. 

However, it appears that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) may grant yet another delay to the abortionists.  On Friday, the IDFPR issued an extension to the abortionists until it meets on Wednesday to determine whether another delay will be allowed.

If granted, this delay could give the ACLU time to secure an injunction in its newly-filed case, the health and welfare of minors in Illinois would once again be in danger.  Contrary to the ACLU’s claims, parental involvement laws in other states work.  Minors and parental rights are protected.  There have been no reports of “serious and irreversible harm to teens” in other states where parental notice and consent laws have been in place for years.

We can hope that the state court will see through the antics of the ACLU and the IDFPR.  But we don’t want to underestimate the strategy of the ACLU in using Illinois partisan politics—and what an alliance between the two might mean.

Buried in an Associated Press story last week on President Obama’s health care reform agenda was a fact that counters misleading statements from the White House: The Hyde Amendment does not protect American taxpayers from funding abortions through ObamaCare.

The AP reports:

The main point of contention is the proposed new federal subsidies that would help lower-income people purchase health care coverage from private plans — and potentially from a new government-sponsored plan — within a new purchasing exchange.

Currently a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion — except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother’s life would be endangered — and applies those restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.

But the Democrats’ health overhaul bill would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.

As blogger Ed Morrissey notes, “It only took the Associated Press six weeks after Rep. Joe Wilson’s ‘You lie!’, but they finally have reported that Barack Obama told a whopper in his joint speech to Congress — and that Democrats have lied all along about abortion and ObamaCare.” But the misinformation from the White House didn’t end with Obama’s speech.  Twice in recent weeks, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has insisted to reporters that the Hyde Amendment is sufficient to prevent federal funds from subsidizing abortion.

Morrissey adds:

Democrats have used the Hyde Amendment as a big red herring during this debate.They have repeatedly argued that their ObamaCare bills do not repeal the Hyde Amendment, which is at once both true and irrelevant.  The funding for ObamaCare bypassed the Hyde amendment, which allows most Democrats to pose dishonestly on the issue.

That was most true when Barack Obama told Congress and the American people that no federal dollars would go for abortions.  He knew, or at least he should have known, that the Hyde Amendment did not cover the funding his own party proposed for coverage.  He also knew that his party had blocked efforts to close that loophole in the bill.  Obama either lied or showed a dismaying ignorance of the facts in the debate, and given his endorsement of Planned Parenthood and theirs in return, I’m betting he isn’t ignorant on this issue at all.

Indeed, while on the campaign trail, Obama vowed to Planned Parenthood that abortion funding would be the “center and heart” of his health care plan. The current bill is on track to keep that promise–unless Americans call on the President and Congress to keep his promise to America–that of an abortion-free health care bill–and not his promise to Planned Parenthood.

TAKE ACTION: Join Team Life via AUL Action’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com and make your voice heard in Washington.

Today, an Associated Press article highlighted the division among Democrats in the House of Representatives over abortion in health care reform.  The article accurately describes several of the reasons why pro-life members of Congress are not satisfied with the “Capps Amendment” (language added to the House bill during the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up): 

1) The amendment allows government subsidies to go to health insurance plans that cover abortion. 

2) Current federal laws that prohibit abortion funding and coverage, such as the Hyde Amendment, will not apply to the new benefits created by health care reform.

However, the article does not mention two major problems with Capps: 

1) Abortion will be covered by the public option under the Capps Amendment, leading to immediate federal funding of abortion. 

2) The Capps Amendment would ensure that one private plan in every area of the country includes abortion coverage.

Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-Mich) and Joe Pitts (R-PA), along with 181 other members of Congress, have asked Speaker Pelosi to allow a vote on the House Floor on an amendment that would explicitly exclude abortion funding.  However, according to the AP and our own sources, the Democratic leadership does not plan to grant this request because they know that the amendment will succeed if given a vote.  Therefore, to prevent the health care reform bill from being pushed through without the inclusion of express language excluding abortion, pro-life members of the House must block the procedural vote “on the rule” (regarding which amendments may be considered on the Floor). 

While the article states that “abortion has been much less of an issue” in the Senate, the final Senate bill that emerges from the back rooms of Congress will likely be just as dangerous to the unborn as the House bill.  Amendments that would have explicitly excluded abortion funding and coverage were defeated in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.  The Senate Finance Committee bill includes provisions similar to the proabortion Capps Amendment, and the Senate HELP bill leaves abortion coverage and funding to the discretion of an administrative agency. 

Because our sources tell us that any pro-life amendments are likely to fail on the Senate Floor, pro-life Senators and other Senators who are do not want the government to pay for abortions must prevent the Senate from proceeding to consideration of the bill, by blocking the “motion to proceed.”

When President Obama was on the campaign trail, he promised Planned Parenthood that the “first thing” he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)–a bill that would strike down all regulations on abortion, denying Americans their rights of conscience, and forcing taxpayers to fund the destruction of unborn life.

But word got out, and the outcry from pro-life Americans–including the hundreds of thousands who joined AUL Action’s Fight FOCA campaign–caused the President to delay carrying out his promise. Instead, he embarked upon a campaign of FOCA by stealth, building the most pro-abortion presidential administration in history. That effort continues with Obama’s latest nomination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s executive panel, pro-abortion lawyer Chai Feldblum, who formerly worked for the American Civil Liberties Union.

LifeNews reports:

Feldblum isn’t known by most Americans, but she worked for the pro-abortion Human Rights Campaign Fund and, from 1986-1987, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the infamous judge who handed down the Roe v. Wade decision that has allowed more than 51 million abortions.

Feldblum’s nomination is particularly threatening to rights of conscience. She considers the legal right to abortion as necessary for “sexual liberty.” In cases where religious liberty–e.g. the right of a doctor to refuse performing an abortion on religious grounds–and “sexual liberty” conflict, she’s gone on record saying “having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

TAKE ACTION: Show the White House and Congress that you oppose all efforts to impose “FOCA by Stealth.” Join Team Life at AUL Action’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com.

LifeNews reports that the Obama administration’s official volunteerism Web site, Serve.gov, encourages visitors to put in hours at Planned Parenthood.

Journalist Lisa Staub discovered the government site’s promotion of the abortion giant when she typed the keyword “health” and the city “Houston” into its search engine, which is intended to connect prospective volunteers with service organizations in their communities. Doing so “brought up Planned Parenthood’s need for volunteers to make sure women with abortion appointments are not harassed by the peaceful and prayerful people involved in the 40 Days for Life effort to help women,” LifeNews reports.

“Their job? Make sure pro-life protestors don’t speak or give any information to women seeking abortions at the clinic,” Stauber writes. …

Jill Stanek, a pro-life blogger, visited the site and also found a volunteer sign-up for Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin seeking help to promote abortion at the Madison Farmers Market and others.

“I’m sure I’d find more if I kept looking but you get the drift. You’re paying for Planned Parenthood to snag volunteers, sometimes to directly combat our pro-life efforts,” she complained.

Blogger Thomas Peters observes, “Let’s face it – the President supports the mission and organization of Planned Parenthood. That’s the unavoidable conclusion to his political background, promises — and now — presidential administration.”

TAKE ACTION: Visit RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com to learn how you can join the thousands of pro-lifers who are letting the White House and Congress know that Americans do not want their tax dollars to aid abortion providers.

If Congressional leaders have their way, sweeping health care reform legislation will force American taxpayers to fund abortion-on-demand. A few days ago I had a chance to explain this to the country in an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled: “Tax Dollars Shouldn’t Fund Abortion”:

Democratic leaders claim that all they want is to maintain the “status quo” on abortion. In reality, maintaining what we have now isn’t even on the table. To do that, a health-care bill would have to explicitly prevent federal dollars from being used for elective abortions. Provisions that would have done that were killed by all five committees that have handled health-care reform bills this year. Instead, the abortion compromise in the works is a provision modeled on an amendment Rep. Lois Capps (D., Calif.) added to the House bill.

The Capps Amendment is a radical departure from the status quo. As it stands now, the federal government does not pay into health-care plans that cover elective abortions. What’s more, no government health plans cover elective abortion, period. That includes Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and other programs.

At Americans United for Life we are working tirelessly to alert the American people to the truth: that the health care reform proposals being pushed by Congressional leaders would mandate taxpayer funding or abortion.

But time is running out. The White House is pressuring Congress to rush through a health care bill that currently would force all American taxpayers to subsidize abortion on demand.

Your contribution NOW will help us continue this critical fight during the final weeks of the health care debate. The need could not be more urgent.

HERE are the Facts

Media Matters stated:  “In a new anti-choice ad, the conservative Americans United for Life presents several nuggets of misinformation regarding how abortion is being treated in Democratic proposals for health care reform.  Because they lack any factual grounds for their argument, the group resorts to ominous music, sarcasm, and misdirection.”

Our Response:  All of the statements in the advertisement are facts.  If Media Matters truly wishes to dispute the accuracy of our statements, they should do that – not just paste in statements made by other sources about health care reform.  Nonetheless, below is the background information on our statements. 

Our assertions in the ad:

1.     “Senator Max Baucus’ health care bill requires the taxpayers to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion.”

The Senate Finance (Baucus) Bill authorizes $6 billion in funding to create a Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program, which is described on pages 43-45 of the Redline, the most recent version of the bill (note – the bill is still only written in conceptual language, not statutory language).  The purpose of the CO-OP is “to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies that serve individuals in one or more states.”  The Federal funds (i.e. tax dollars) will be distributed as loans and grants.

Nothing in the Senate Finance Bill states whether or not these federally-funded health insurance companies will cover abortion; however, if they do, $6 billion in federal (taxpayer) funds will be used to set up insurance companies that cover abortion.  If members of the Finance Committee did not intend for these companies to include abortion coverage in their health care plans, why did they defeat Senator Hatch’s amendment during the Finance Committee’s mark-up that would have prohibited the authorization or appropriation of federal funds for “elective abortions and plans that cover such abortions”?  (Amendment #C14, failed 13-10).

Without the inclusion of explicit language excluding abortion coverage, like the amendment offered by Senator Hatch, there is no guarantee that abortion coverage will be excluded.

2.     The Capps Amendment routes federal dollars to private health insurance plans that cover abortion. 

The Capps Amendment to the House health care bill, H.R. 3200, provides the following:  “In the case of a qualified health benefits plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under this Act from providing coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B). . . .” (Subsection (d)(2), page 1, line 12 through page 2, line 5, emphasis added).  The referenced “services” in (4)(A) and (4)(B) are all abortions (those for which federal funding is allowed under the Hyde Amendment (rape, incest and the life of the mother) and those for which federal funding is prohibited under the Hyde Amendment).

In other words, private health care plans that cover abortion are allowed to participate in the “health insurance exchange” created by H.R. 3200.  Individuals who qualify to receive “affordability credits” (federal dollars) to help pay their insurance premiums may then select health care plans that cover abortion.  The end result – federal dollars subsidize health care plans that cover abortion.

Supporters of the Capps Amendment argue that this is not problematic, because the amendment establishes an accounting mechanism designed to separate the federal funds flowing into a health insurance plan that covers abortion from the portion of the premium paid by an individual.  In theory, only the portion paid by the individual may be used to pay for abortions, while the federal dollars are used to pay for non-abortion related services. The mechanism creates “silos” of money in an attempt to claim that no federal taxpayer dollars will fund abortion.

The Capps accounting mechanism is flawed because it is a restriction in name only. It will not work because money is fungible. Funds are funds, and money is freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part. Corporations, households, and small business all have one bottom line, and funding diverted away from abortion simply allows “unearmarked” money that a health plan would otherwise have used to pay for other types of care to flow towards abortion services. For instance, if your household received a tax credit to pay for child care, that would free up the money you had budgeted for child care expenses, allowing you to spend those dollars on other household expenses. Your household realizes a net gain of the amount of the child care tax credit.

Under Capps, even if certain funds have restrictions on use for abortion, an abortion-providing health care entity can simply substitute unrestricted funding in its place. In this way, federal taxpayers are supporting plans which offer abortion coverage and contributing funds towards the provision of abortion.   

3.     The Capps Amendment will include abortion in the public option . . .

The Capps Amendment provides that “[t]he public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B) [“abortions for which funding is allowed” under the Hyde Amendment – currently in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother].  Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A) [“abortions for which public funding is prohibited” under the Hyde Amendment]” (Subsection (d)(3), page 2, line 6 through 12, emphasis and brackets added).

In other words, the Capps amendment requires the public option to cover any abortions for which federal funding is currently allowed under the Hyde Amendment (rape, incest, and the life of the mother).  Therefore, in the event that the Hyde Amendment is ever eliminated or its exceptions are broadened, coverage of more or all abortions would be required. 

Furthermore, the amendment permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to include elective abortion (Sec. (4)(A)) as a mandatory minimum benefit in the public option.  There is little doubt that abortion will be included in the public option, given the proabortion stance of the current Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, and President Obama’s statement at a Planned Parenthood conference on July 17, 2007:  “In my mind, reproductive care [i.e. abortion] is essential care, it is basic care . . . so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I proposed . . . .”

4.     . . . and ensures that every area of the country will have at least one health insurance plan that covers abortion.

The Capps Amendment provides that “[t]he Commissioner shall assure that, of Exchange participating health benefits plans offered in each premium rating area of the Health Insurance Exchange—there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 122(d)(4) . . .” (Subsection (e), page 3, line 5 through page 4, line 14).

In other words, for the first time in history, the federal government will ensure that every area of the country has access to a private health insurance plan that includes abortion coverage. 

5.     All five committees defeated amendments that would have stopped an abortion mandate in health care reform. 

Below are the amendments defeated in the five committees of jurisdiction (three in the House and two in the Senate) that would have prohibited abortion coverage and funding:

House Ways and Means Committee

            The amendment offered by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) to prohibit abortion coverage failed by a vote of 18-23. 

The amendment offered by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) to prohibit abortion funding failed by a vote of 19-22.

House Education and Labor Committee

            The two amendments offered by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) to prohibit abortion coverage and funding failed by votes of 19-29. 

House Energy and Commerce Committee

The two amendments offered by Rep. Stupak (D-MI) and Pitts (R-PA) to prohibit abortion coverage and funding failed by a vote of 30-29 and 27-31, respectively.

Senate Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions

An amendment offered by Sen. Hatch (R-UT) to prohibit abortions funding failed. (amdt. 227).

An amendment offered by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) to prohibit abortion coverage failed (amdt. 276).

Senate Finance Committee

An amendment by Senator Hatch (R-UT) (#C14) to prohibit the authorization or appropriation of federal funds for “elective abortions and plans that cover such abortions,” with an exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother failed 13-10.

6.     The pro-abortion legislators are telling you that the Hyde Amendment will stop federally funded abortions in health care reform.  Don’t be fooled. The Hyde Amendment does not apply to the current health care reform proposals. 

The Hyde Amendment is a spending limitation added to the yearly Labor, Health & Human Services (LHHS) Appropriations bill to prohibit federal funding from being used to pay for abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.  Spending falls under Hyde if:

1)      The money is appropriated yearly through the Appropriations process, AND

2)      The money flows through HHS (as with Medicaid).

Both 1 & 2 are required for Hyde to apply.  The Hyde Amendment is used to prevent Medicaid funds from being used to pay for abortion. 

None of the new benefits discussed above meet both of these criteria.  Therefore, the Hyde Amendment will not apply to them.

• H.R. 3200 establishes a separate funding mechanism for the affordability credits (it bypasses the Appropriations process).  The credits are routed through a newly established Trust Fund financed through taxes on, among other sources, individuals and small businesses who do not meet health insurance coverage mandates. (See Sec. 207 (c)(2)).  Funding for the affordability credits neither runs through HHS nor depends upon the yearly Appropriations process; therefore, Hyde does not apply. 

• In the Senate HELP Bill, the Hyde Amendment will not apply toward the tax credits because the HELP bill bypasses the Appropriations process (See Sec. 3111). Funding for the tax credits will not depend upon the yearly Appropriations process; therefore, Hyde does not apply. 

• In the Senate Finance Bill, the Hyde Amendment will not apply toward the tax credits because the Baucus bill bypasses the Appropriations process.  Funding for the tax credits will not depend upon the yearly Appropriations process; therefore, Hyde does not apply. 

7.     President Obama and congress, when will you write explicit language excluding abortion from health care reform? America wants to know.  Don’t let your tax dollars go to abortion.

The detailed explanations above demonstrate that the health care reform proposals under consideration provide for federal coverage and funding for abortion.  All are changes in the status quo on abortion.  Without explicit language excluding abortion coverage and funding, these proposals will lead America down the road to paying for the destruction of innocent human life.

There have been many promises made during the health care debate in Congress, from President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and many others that no federal funding will go to abortion in health care reform. They claim they are merely maintaining the “status quo.” Yesterday, in The Wall Street Journal, AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest argues in her op-ed “Tax Dollars Shouldn’t Fund Abortion” that the current proposals aren’t the status quo and in fact, they would “take us toward an era of unprecedented federal abortion funding.”

As Dr. Yoest writes,

“The Capps Amendment would side step the Hyde Amendment and other provisions in federal law. If it becomes law as part of health-care reform it would make abortion coverage a part of the public option, funnel tax dollars to private health plans that cover abortion, and ensure that every area of the country will have at least one health insurance plan that covers elective abortion. If this should happen, for the first time in more than 30 years the federal government would be in the business of funding the destruction of unborn human life.”

On Wednesday, October 14, AUL Action, the legislative action arm of Americans United for Life, will be releasing an online ad, “Don’t Be Fooled: Abortion is in Health Care Reform,” to raise awareness among the pro-life grassroots about taxpayer-funded abortion in the current health care reform proposals. The ad is a part of Americans United for Life Action’s Real Health Care Respects Life campaign, a project to educate citizens about the proposals in health care reform that are a threat to the sanctity of life.  The ad will be released on AUL Action’s health care reform Web site: RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com as part of a project to mobilize pro-life opposition nationwide to abortion in health care reform.

     AUL Action President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest, said, “The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose abortion funding in health care reform.  Yet, the abortion lobby and its allies on Capitol Hill continue to mislead the American public with false promises that abortion will not be in health care reform.  The reality doesn’t match the rhetoric.”

     Dr. Yoest adds, “This ad cuts through the deceptive rhetoric of pro-abortion politicians and shows how American taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions against their conscience.  Including government-funded abortion coverage in health care proposals, breaks with current policy which limits taxpayer-funds for abortion.”

     Americans United for Life is the organization that successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae in 1980. The ad dispels the various claims by leading politicians who have denied that abortion is in the U.S. House and Senate health care reform proposals by providing hard-hitting examples of where abortion is stated in health care proposals.  The ad ends with calling on Americans to contact their Member of Congress to stop their tax dollars from going to abortion.

     AUL Action’s legal team’s in-depth analysis of life issues in the health care bills can be reviewed at AULA’s health care website: Real Health Care Respects Life.com.

    Please visit RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com on Wednesday, October 14^th for this groundbreaking new health care ad.

With all the twists and turns in the health care debate, we keep hearing the question: what’s next? So I wanted to take a minute and sketch out for you what we know from our meetings here in the Nation’s Capital and on the Hill.

Next week, the Senate Finance Committee is poised to vote out its health care reform bill. After that, Majority Leader Harry Reid and his allies will determine the content of the final Senate bill–and Americans want to know what’s in it. The New York Times reports that a group of centrist Democratic senators sent a letter to the majority leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada), urging that the public be given at least 72 hours to review the legislation before debate begins on the Senate floor.

If the public does get a chance to view the bill, what it finds certainly won’t please the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose including abortion funding in health care reform. Like the other four committees (three in the House and one in the Senate) that have reported out health care reform bills, the Senate Finance Committee failed to include language in the legislation that would adequately exclude federal funding and coverage of abortion.

Senate Finance Committee staff is already working to reconcile their bill with the bill reported out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Ultimately, however, Majority Leader Harry Reid and other members of the Democratic Party will determine the content of the final Senate bill.

Similarly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic Leadership are working to reconcile the three different versions of the House Bill (H.R. 3200) that were reported out of the House Committees, and will therefore control the content of that bill.

Recent intelligence from the Hill indicates that a purported “compromise” on abortion funding and coverage in health care reform is in the works. The template for the language is Rep. Lois Capps’ (D-Calif.) amendment that was added to the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) during the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up, with similar language included in the Senate Finance Committee Bill.

But don’t be fooled: The Capps Amendment is not a compromise. In fact, it mandates abortion coverage in the public health care plan; mandates that at least one private insurance plan within a geographic area provide abortion coverage; and allows individuals to apply their affordability credits (government subsidies) to private plans that cover abortion.

The Democratic leadership plans to bring the House and Senate bills to their respective floors in mid-October, providing little if any time for pro-life members of Congress to review the legislation. In any case, the merged bill is expected to be dramatically different than the Senate Finance Committee proposal. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Reuters:

“The real bill will be written by Democrat leaders in a closed-to-the-public conference room somewhere in the Capitol. The real bill will be another 1,000-page, trillion-dollar experiment.”

Furthermore, while pro-life members of Congress should have the opportunity to offer pro-life amendments during the floor debate, it is likely that the pro-abortion leadership will use procedural maneuvers to block the consideration of amendments that would exclude abortion coverage and funding.

Our legal team is doing everything they can to ensure that Americans understand that millions of lives, born and unborn, are at risk if Congress fails to pass a health care bill that respects life.

You are among the millions of Americans who believes that “Real Health Care Respects Life” and we are working hard for you to get your voice to Congress. But we can do much more with your help. Will you make a donation today and help us continue to spread the word about the threat of abortion in health care?

Thank you for all your support and for standing with us!

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal in Choose Life Illinois v. White, upholding a Seventh Circuit ruling that the Illinois system for approving specialty plates was not discriminatory. 

The case was filed in 2004 after citizens had collected more than the requisite number of signatures, but were denied a “Choose Life” license plate.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, observed, “Ever-increasing numbers of pro-life Americans want to proudly display the ‘Choose Life’ message on their vehicles — as evidenced by the fact that 22 states now offer such plates.  Illinois is unfairly censoring the freedom of speech of its citizens by not allowing them to obtain a plate with a life-affirming message.”

Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel, noted, “Pro-life citizens in Illinois followed the rules in applying for a ‘Choose Life’ license plate, but were prohibited from obtaining the plate because the Illinois Secretary of State did not like its pro-life message.  As the last defense for constitutional rights, the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped in to correct the State’s clearly unconstitutional action.”

As in other states, the proceeds from the proposed “Choose Life” license plates would have gone to organizations such as pregnancy care centers that provide adoption counseling and referrals.

Americans United for Life filed an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit on behalf of a large coalition of Illinois pregnancy care centers.  That brief is available at http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ChooseLifeILvWhite.pdf.  However, that court refused to accept amicus briefs filed by pro-life organizations.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows that support for legalized abortion has dropped to its lowest level in years. In the past year, the number of Americans who said abortion should be legal in most or all cases dropped from 54 percent to 47 percent – and pollsters note the shift “could be connected to Obama’s election.”

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, who met with the White House last month on the issue of abortion in health care, said of the dramatic shift, “The political implications of the shift illustrated by this poll are significant: including abortion in health care reform is a move out of touch with the American people.  Congress needs to remove the abortion mandate out of the current health care proposals.”

Despite Americans’ opposition to having their tax money pay for abortions, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Max Baucus’s health care bill requires the government to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion. An amendment proposed last week by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that would have explicitly prohibited federal funding and coverage of abortions was defeated by the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 10-13.  The committee also voted down an amendment by Senator Hatch that would have prevented discrimination against any individual or entity that refused to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. 

Dr. Yoest added, “We continue to see a gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill:  If members of Congress do not intend for the health care reform bills to fund and mandate abortion coverage, then why have they voted against all amendments that would have included explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage?”

On the heels of recent surveys demonstrating that a majority of Americans are increasingly identifying themselves as pro-life, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a lower court’s decision muzzling the free speech rights of pro-life citizens in Illinois to stand.

The State of Illinois has done nothing less than censor its pro-life citizens.  Despite the fact that almost half of the states in the nation offer “Choose Life” license plates—with another 14 states working on them—the people of Illinois have been silenced.

The case was Choose Life Illinois v. White.  Even after Choose Life Illinois submitted over 25,000 names on its petition for “Choose Life” plates and complied with every written guideline provided in Illinois law, Secretary of State Jessie White said that he had no authority to issue the plates, claiming instead that the authority rested with the legislature alone.  An interesting claim—since the Illinois statute said no such thing.  In fact, during the course of litigation, the Illinois legislature amended the applicable law to include a role for the legislature.  In other words, the legislature saw that there was a hole in White’s claims, and they “patched it up” for him.

 The real losers in this decision are not just Illinois motorists who wanted “Choose Life” plates— but also the adoption agencies, the homes for pregnant women, the pregnancy resource centers, and the unborn children those facilities seek to protect on a daily basis.  These are the facilities whose actions really do reduce the number of abortions each year.  Proceeds from the license plates would have been funneled to facilities actively counseling and advocating for adoption.

But that’s okay, because there are still several license plates that Illinois citizens can choose.  Pet lover?  Illinois has a plate for you.  A sheet metal worker?  Ditto.  Support youth golf?  Illinois even has a plate for that.

In fact, Illinois offers 60 specialty license plates.  It appears that as long as you don’t mention unborn life, your plate will be approved.  And according to the Seventh Circuit, that’s not censorship.  That’s just the state avoiding one particular issue that it doesn’t want to talk about.

Nope.  No censorship there.

Today Family Research Council released its report, A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life, highlighting the contributions of pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) over the last 40 years.  The release comes at an interesting time—the President is attempting to make abortion a recognized form of “health care,” and we are seeing increasing attacks on PRCs each legislative session in the form of draconian legislation regulating the activities of PRCs and sometimes even attempting to force them to present information on abortion.

The report released today offers a great rebuttal to those efforts: real health care protects women.  Real health care involves caring guidance to women in need, focusing on both her physical and psychological health.

In a press conference broadcast live over the internet, a panel of speakers—including physicians, clients served by PRCs, and the presidents of three national pregnancy center networks—discussed the impact of PRCs on women’s, adolescent, maternal, and child health and how the movement’s growth is driven by the public’s desire to support abortion alternatives.

This desire is also demonstrated each legislative session.  While we are seeing increasing bills targeting PRCs, those bills are far out-paced each year by bills providing funding and state support to abortion alternatives.

During the press conference, co-author of the report Chuck Donovan, Senior Research Fellow at Heritage Foundation, stated that abortions were reduced by tens of thousands last year through the work of PRCs, and that this work results in enormous healthcare savings.

Co-author Moira Gaul, Fellow and Director of Women’s and Reproductive Health at FRC, added that these volunteer-run PRCs assist over 5,000 Americans on a daily basis, providing a “substantial public health benefit to our nation.”

Ironically, as I drafted this blog entry, AUL received word that the Senate Finance Committee voted down important pro-life amendments that would have prevented the federal funding and coverage of abortion and protected the conscience rights of healthcare providers.

In AUL’s press release, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, said that the defeat of these amendments illustrates the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:

“President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform.  Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action.  The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform.”

Obama’s claim that he wants to reduce abortions is mere rhetoric.  The amazing work of PRCs on a daily basis in truly reducing abortions is reality.

A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life is available at http://www.apassiontoserve.org.  AUL will be posting an in-depth analysis of the report’s findings.

WASHINGTON — Today, in a vote of 10-13 in the Senate Finance Committee, the Hatch Amendment #C14 was defeated.  The amendment would have explicitly prohibited federal funding and coverage of abortions.  The Committee also voted down an amendment by Senator Hatch that would have prevented discrimination against any individual or entity who refused to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.  

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life recently met with the White House to discuss conscience protection and the lack of explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage in health care reform.

Dr. Yoest said that the defeat of these important amendments illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:

“President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform.  Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action.  The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform.”

Here are the defeated pro-life amendments voted down in the Senate Finance Committee:

Hatch Amendment #C14 Description:

No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of  rape or incest.

Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions.  Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the policy.

 SENATE VOTE

Republicans

CHUCK GRASSLEY – yes

ORRIN G. HATCH – yes

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE – no

JON KYL – yes

JIM BUNNING – yes

MIKE CRAPO – yes

PAT ROBERTS – yes

JOHN ENSIGN – yes

MIKE ENZI – yes

JOHN CORNYN – yes

 Democrats

 MAX BAUCUS – no

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER – no

KENT CONRAD – yes

JEFF BINGAMAN – no

JOHN F. KERRY – no

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN – no

RON WYDEN – no

CHARLES E. SCHUMER – no

DEBBIE STABENOW – no

MARIA CANTWELL – no

BILL NELSON – no

ROBERT MENENDEZ – no

THOMAS CARPER – no

Not Agreed to (10-13)

Hatch Amendment #C13: Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for right of conscience

Description:

Non-Discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience

(a) NON DISCRIMINATION.-A Federal agency or program, and any State or

local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act ( or and amendment made by this Act), may not-

       1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to

discrimination, or

       2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(b) DEFINITON.-In this section, the term “health care entity” includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

(c) ADMINISTRATION.-The Office for Civil Right of the Department of Heath and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

SENATE VOTE

Republicans

CHUCK GRASSLEY – yes

ORRIN G. HATCH – yes

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE – no

JON KYL – yes

JIM BUNNING – yes

MIKE CRAPO – yes

PAT ROBERTS – yes

JOHN ENSIGN – yes

MIKE ENZI – yes

JOHN CORNYN – yes

Democrats

MAX BAUCUS – no

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER – no

KENT CONRAD – yes

JEFF BINGAMAN – no

JOHN F. KERRY – no

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN – no

RON WYDEN – no

CHARLES E. SCHUMER – no

DEBBIE STABENOW – no

MARIA CANTWELL – no

BILL NELSON – no

ROBERT MENENDEZ – no

THOMAS CARPER – no

 Not Agreed to (10-13)

AUL President Charmaine Yoest speaks on Fox News with Shannon Bream about the recent meeting at the White House, with President Obama’s key policy staffers.

This article was published with permission from Culture of Life Foundation. To view the original publication, see their website.

By Jessica Sage
AUL Staff Counsel

Brenda Vise, a 38-year old pharmaceutical representative, died on September 12, 2001.  Holly Patterson, an 18-year old student, died on September 17, 2003.  Chanelle Bryant, 22-years old, died on January 14, 2004.  Vivian Tran, also 22 years old, died on December 29, 2003.  Orianne Shevin, a 34-year old attorney and mother of two, died on June 14, 2005.

What do these women have in common?  They all took RU-486, the so-called “abortion pill,” and died—most from a C. Sordelli infection and one from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy.  RU-486—a drug that its proponents claim is a “safe” and “easy” method of abortion—has killed at least 29 women worldwide including at least 8 American women.

This month marks the 21st anniversary of French approval of the controversial abortion drug.  Initially, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considered RU-486 dangerous and banned the importation of the drug.  However, later in 1993, following the wishes of then-President Bill Clinton, the FDA lifted the import ban and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) brokered a deal for the drug manufacturer, Roussel-Uclaf, to gratuitously donate the rights to distribute RU-486 in the U.S. to the Population Council, an organization whose mission is to research, develop and introduce birth control methods (including abortion) to control populations—“especially [for] disadvantage populations.”

Since the Population Council is a research and policy organization, not a drug company, it founded Danco Laboratories for the sole purpose of marketing and distributing RU-486 in the U.S.  Unable to find a U.S. company willing to manufacture the drug, Danco Laboratories turned to China—a nation known for coerced abortions—and a manufacturer formerly cited by the FDA for tainted drugs.

In September 2000—during the final days of the Clinton Administration—the FDA approved RU-486, or Mifeprex (generic name: mifepristone), under its accelerated approval regulations designed to expedite drug approvals for HIV patients.  Suddenly, the FDA deemed that the benefits of RU-486 outweighed the risks and required that it receive expedited approval.  In other words, the FDA succumbed to intense political pressure from the Population Council and abortion advocates to approve the drug.

On its website and in its literature, Danco Laboratories advertises RU-486 as a “safe” and “easy” abortion option.  However, the U.S. trials and subsequent market use are to the contrary.  It is neither safe nor easy. 

A RU-486 or chemical abortion is, in reality, a long, messy, and dangerous process.  RU-486 is a synthetic steroid that requires two drugs and three doctor visits to abort an unborn child at 7 weeks of gestation or less.  During the first visit, the woman takes three pills (Mifeprex) to chemically destroy the unborn child’s environment, deprive him/her of nourishment and subsequently starve the child to death.  During the second visit, if the woman is still pregnant she is given a prostaglandin (misoprostol), which causes cramping to expel the child in something similar to a very heavy and painful (and, at times, deadly) menstruation cycle.  The third office visit (14 days later) confirms the woman is well and the abortion complete.  If the RU-486 abortion is unsuccessful, the women must consider the possibility of birth defects and typically then undergoes a surgical abortion.

The Population Council—with vested interest in the success of RU-486—conducted and reported on the results of the U.S. clinical trials.  Despite the highly-controlled trials conducted from September 1994 to September 1995, the results reported in the New England Journal of Medicine remained alarming.  They revealed how RU-486 creates significant risks of life-threatening complications for the healthiest of women.

The study cited excessive bleeding as the most serious risk.  Excessive bleeding left 4 women needing blood transfusions, 25 women requiring hospitalization (including emergency-room visits), 56 women with “surgical interventions,” and 22 women needing intravenous fluids.  To the logical observer, these “adverse events” would equate to “medical emergencies,” but the Population Council dismissed these life-threatening complications as normal and expected with a chemical abortion.

The studies also indicated that women suffered from abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.  Abdominal pain, referred to as “cramps,” was so significant that 68% of women received at least one pain medication and 29% received opiates.  One woman was hospitalized for the intense pain and actually needed two “surgical interventions.”

Further, the study results also confirmed that a chemical abortion “procedure” must begin within 49 days of conception, otherwise the baby’s size and development are too advanced and complications are admittedly too severe and dangerous.

Inexplicably, the report paid little attention to the other adverse events women reported including headache (32%); dizziness (12%); back pain (9%); fatigue (9%); fever (4%); vaginitis (4%); viral infections (4%); rigors (3%); dyspepsia (3% ); and asthenia, leg pain, anxiety, insomnia, anemia, syncope, leukorrhea, and sinusitis (2% each).  And if that is not enough, endometritis occurred in 19 women.  These are not just percentages and not simply insignificant statistics, but real women experiencing real complications (some requiring timely life-saving measures) after taking RU-486.

The Population Council acknowledged that the study showed that RU-486 had a low success rate and attempted to rationalize the discrepancy as merely “a lack of experience with [chemical] abortion in the United States as well as the design of [the] study.”  If this is true, then how much lower would the success rate and higher the complication rate be once approved by the FDA and introduced to the uncontrolled and unmonitored marketplace?  Unfortunately, U.S. women are finding out first-hand.

Since its September 2000 FDA approval, RU-486 has caused at least 8 deaths, 9 life-threatening incidents, 116 blood transfusions, and 232 hospitalizations for more than 1,100 women in the U.S. who experienced significant medical complications.  These numbers are only the incidents reported to and by the FDA and are likely an inadequate reflection of actual incidences.

The futile efforts by the FDA to make an unsafe drug acceptably safe by detailing certain limitations on who can prescribe the drug and the protocols to be followed are obviously insufficient.  On November 15, 2004, the FDA issued “important new safety changes” to the labeling of RU-486.  The FDA and drug manufacturer Danco Laboratories had received reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and death.  The FDA’s response:  Change the black box labeling and nothing more.  The new label warns health care professionals and consumers about the “risk of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, sepsis, and death,” but does nothing to protect women from these risks actually occurring.

If past care is indicative of future care by abortion providers, none of these warnings will protect women.  Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers have notoriously failed to adhere to the labeling instructions or given appropriate medical attention to women who notify them of these dangerous complications after taking RU-486.  Since its approval, RU-486’s promoters have ignored the minimal FDA guidelines by recommending lower dosages, suggesting clinics drop follow-on visits to allow patients to self administer at home, promoting vaginal versus oral administration, and extending the usage deadline past the seven weeks prescribed by the FDA—all harming women who are entrusting their lives to these “reproductive care” providers. 

States can and must act to regulate and – in the case of minors – limit the use of RU-486.  Current FDA guidelines do nothing to restrict minors from obtaining RU-486 or restrict physicians from implementing the drug in “off-label” uses.  It does require the drug to be provided by or under the supervision of a physician who meets certain qualifications—but most abortion providers meet these requirements and have clearly shown their willingness to prescribe RU-486 in “off-label” and life-threatening ways.

In 2004, the Ohio General Assembly enacted a law requiring abortion providers to comply with the FDA-approval letter and the uses, dosages, and administration protocols contained in the drug label.  In July 2009 —after five years of legal battles with Planned Parenthood—the Ohio Supreme Court answered that the plain language of the law mandates that abortion providers follow the instructions contained in the medication guide and drug labeling when administering or prescribing RU-486.  Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit removed an injunction against the law’s enforcement and remanded the case to the district court.  In light of the dangers associated with RU-486 and its American track record, it is astounding that Planned Parenthood would even argue that it need not follow the approved and “safe” method of administrating RU-486.

States can and should further protect women from RU-486 by imposing administrative regulations on its administration by requiring that abortion providers follow the FDA-approved drug labeling.  Second, to prevent “satellite” prescriptions, states could consider physician-only limits on RU-486 explicitly requiring physicians to be physically present at the abortion facility when they prescribe and administer the drug and clearly prohibiting the delegation of actual administration duties to nurses, physician assistants, or others.  It would also be prudent to require the facilities to be able to provide or be proximate to emergency care and to mandate ultrasounds before prescribing RU-486 to accurately determine the gestational age of the unborn child and to rule out ectopic pregnancy.

Another necessary consideration is for states to review existing—and enact, if nonexistent—parental involvement laws requiring abortion providers to involve parents when a minor girl seeks a RU-486 or other chemical abortion.

Despite the real and evidenced dangers of RU-486, the FDA, the drug manufacturer, and prescribing abortion providers continue to believe the “adverse effects” are not statistically significant.  They continue to profess its safety and ease as more and more women are sacrificed at the altar of “reproductive choice.”  At what point will the harm to women be significant enough for the FDA to pull this deadly drug from the market?  The answer is unclear.  In the meantime, it is imperative to regulate and, when appropriate, restrict the use of RU-486 to protect women and to limit the “collateral damage” abortion advocates are clearly willing to accept.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC), released his Committee’s health care reform bill on September 16, 2009.  The SFC bill, America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, provides the spending cuts which will offset the costs of health care reform.  The SFC and the Senate HELP Committee share jurisdiction over health care reform in the Senate, but only the SFC can determine the funding offsets.

The SFC is scheduled to mark up its bill this week.  For daily updates on life-related amendments in the SFC mark-up, click here.  The SFC marks up “in concept” as opposed to amending specific statutory language.  In other words, the process works like this:  First, a member of the Committee offers an amendment to change a provision of the bill.  After debating the amendment, the Committee members vote on it.  If a majority of the members vote in favor of the amendment, the bill’s language will reflect the change made by the amendment.  Three Senators, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) plan to offer amendments during the mark up concerning abortion.

Currently, the SFC bill addresses abortion in a way that closely parallels the abortion provisions in the House health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as added by the Capps amendment. One key difference in the SFC bill, however, is its rejection of the public health insurance option. Where the Capps amendment assures abortion will be a mandatory public plan benefit, the SFC bill does not raise this same concern because it does not include a public plan option.

Pro-life Provisions

On abortion the SFC bill:

Leaves intact state laws regarding the prohibition or requirement of coverage or funding for abortions, and state laws involving abortion-related procedural requirements (see pg. 25); and

Ensures that at least one insurance plan in each state exchange does not provide coverage for abortion (except for abortions in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother) (see pg. 27).  

On conscience protection:

Maintains Federal conscience protections and abortion-related antidiscrimination laws (see pg. 25).

Pro-abortion Provisions

However, the SFC bill also:

Allows qualified health plans to provide coverage for all abortions (see pg. 26) and mandates that at least one plan in each state exchange provide coverage of all abortions (see pg. 27);

Permits “cost-sharing credits” to go to private plans that cover abortion services provided that the plans “segregate” the funds and use only premium dollars to pay for the abortion services (however, this accounting mechanism does not hide the fact that the government is allowing the plans that cover abortions to receive the credits) (see pg. 26);

Would allow the federal government to mandate abortion coverage for abortions in private health insurance if the Hyde amendment ever fails (see pg. 26).

Is not funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) Appropriations Bill, so the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits the use of taxpayer money for abortion through the Medicaid program) does not apply to the bill. 

AUL Action urges the SFC to accept the pro-life amendments offered by Senators Hatch and Enzi in the upcoming days and to respect life through this important reform.

End of Life Provision

There are no provisions addressing end-of-life issues in the Bill.

Physician Quality Reporting / Rationing Provision

The SFC bill would require the Secretary of HHS “to provide reports to physicians that compare their resource use with that of other physicians or groups of physicians caring for patients with similar conditions.”  Beginning in 2015, “payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation of the physician‘s resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization.”  In other words, doctors who fall in the top 10% of expenditures, compared to doctors treating similar patients and conditions, would be penalized.  This could lead doctors to make decisions based on reimbursement concerns rather than concerns for their patients.

In today’s Washington Times, three days after AUL’s meeting with White House officials failed to give adequate reassurances that abortion funding would not be in the health care bill, an op-ed by AUL President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest strikes to the core of the current debate: “Is Abortion Health Care, or Is it Not?”

The truth is that the health care packages under consideration do include abortion funding. Without a specific statutory amendment that includes an explicit ban on federal funding and coverage, we face health care reform that includes abortion.

Lost in the debate over whether or not abortion is “in there” – whether or not you can flip to a certain page and point to a particular clause related to abortion funding – is an understanding among political elites that this is a watershed battle over definition. It’s existential, if you will, and comes down to a very straightforward question: Is abortion health care, or is it not? …

Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby define abortion as health care, as being morally equivalent to a tonsillectomy, and health care reform is their vehicle for imposing that view definitively with the full force of the federal government.

Learn more:

• Watch the recent TV appearances of Dr. Charmaine Yoest on Fox News and AUL Staff Counsel Mary Harned on CBN, each giving the inside story on their meeting last week at the White House.
• Read coverage of AUL’s White House meeting at FoxNews.com, the Washington Examiner, LifeSite, CBN.com’s Brody File, and LifeNews.

This week, Americans United for Life’s legislative arm AUL Action met with senior White House officials Melody Barnes, Tina Tchen and Joshua DuBois.  AUL Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest called on the White House to clarify President Obama’s recent statement of support for keeping abortion funding out of health care reform.  After the meeting, Dr. Yoest stated that the White House remained noncommittal on explicit language excluding abortion from the health care bill. 

“After the meeting, we remain deeply concerned about abortion funding and the abortion mandate in health care reform.  Ms. Barnes reiterated the President’s statement about opposing abortion funding in his address before Congress last week but the White House would not commit to language that explicitly excludes abortion from health care reform.  The reality on the Hill right now is that the health care bills do include abortion funding. 

Without a specific statutory amendment that includes an explicit ban on federal funding and coverage, taxpayers will be paying for abortion.  Including abortion in health care is something the pro-life movement will oppose vigorously.”  

Dr. Yoest provided the White House with a brief from the Americans United for Life legal team that documents why anything less than a explicit ban on abortion funding and coverage will allow government-funded abortion.     

Dr. Yoest also delivered a petition with over 39,000 signatures from pro-life Americans telling President Obama that they urge him to veto any bill that does not specifically forbid mandating insurance companies to cover abortion.  The petition also urges the President to veto any bill that could make taxpayers responsible for directly or indirectly paying for abortion.  

For further information, please visit AUL’s health care website: www.RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com

CBN Story: Pro-Lifers Suspicious of New Health Care Bill

Americans United for Life’s sister organization Americans United for Life Action will relay the pro-life community’s deep concerns about health care reform directly to the White House this Thursday, September 17, when AUL Action meets at the White House with Melody Barnes, President Obama’s Domestic Policy Advisor, Tina Tchen, who directs White House’s Office of Public Engagement and Joshua Dubois, director of the White House’s Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “We plan to take the message to the White House that real health care respects life. Abortion is not health care, but without an explicit, proactive exclusion of abortion, the courts will impose an abortion mandate just as they did with Medicaid. The abortion lobby is using health care reform to try to end-run around the Hyde Amendment which has been a thorn in their side. Their ultimate objective is to define abortion as basic health care which Americans do not support. We have a petition to the President protesting the abortion mandate on www.realhealthcarerespectslife.com that we intend to hand deliver at our meeting.”

The White House made the invitation in response to AULA’s open letter to President Obama, and Dr. Yoest’s agenda items for it include the concerns outlined in that letter: the current health care reform bills’ mandating government coverage and funding of abortion, their insufficient provisions for conscience protection, and the risk the bills carry of denial of care for the elderly and very ill.

          AULA Staff Counsel Mary Harned asks: “If pro-abortion members of Congress do not intend for the health care reform bills to fund and mandate abortion coverage, why did they vote against all amendments that would have included explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage?

These Pro-life Amendments Explicitly Excluding Abortion in the Health Care Bills Were Defeated:

U.S. Senate

• (1) Senator Mike Enzi’s (R-WY) amendments that would have prevented taxpayer funding of abortion and would prevent abortion clinics from being eligible for federally qualified health center grants;
• (2) Senator Orin Hatch’s (R-UT) amendments that would have prevented tax-funded abortions unless the life of the mother is endangered or unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest (making the Hyde Amendment permanent);
• (3) Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) amendments that would have ensured no abortion mandates, prevented abortion clinics from being eligible for federally qualified health center grants, prevented the invalidation of state laws that regulate abortion, codified the Hyde/Weldon conscience protection law, and ensured that Americans have professional ethicists informing any Government-funded medical decisions; and
• (4) Senator Pat Roberts’ (R-KS) amendment which would have prevented the invalidation of state laws regulating abortion.

U.S. House of Representatives

In the Education and Labor Committee:

• • Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Souder) failed (19-29).
  • Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Souder) failed (19-29).

 In the Ways and Means Committee:

• • Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Rep. Johnson) (failed 18-23).
  • Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Rep. Cantor) (failed 19-22).

 House Energy and Commerce Committee:

• • Amendment to prohibit the abortion coverage mandate (Reps. Pitts, Stupak, and Blunt) (failed  29-30).
  • Amendment to prohibit the abortion funding mandate (Reps. Stupak and Pitts) (failed 27-31).

For further information, please visit AUL’s health care website:

www.RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has released his proposal for “America’s Health Future Act.”  This bill has been said to address the pro-life community’s concerns about abortion funding and coverage and freedom of conscience. The proposal deals with the issue of abortion by incorporating similar language to the Capps amendment to H.R. 3200, which does not explicitly exclude abortion coverage and funding; in fact, the Capps Amendment mandates abortion funding. 

Americans United for Life’s President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “This bill provides $6 billion for the establishment of health insurance cooperatives which would be permitted to cover abortion.  Under the Baucus bill, abortions permitted under the Hyde amendment (currently in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother) can be mandated in the minimum benefits package. If the Hyde Amendment is ever eliminated, the Baucus bill would mandate coverage for all abortions.  Real health care respects life and the pro-life community will never support any bill that does not explicitly say that abortion funding and coverage is not allowed. ”

Americans United for Life’s sister organization, Americans United for Life Action, is meeting with the White House tomorrow to discuss concerns regarding abortion funding and coverage, conscience protection and end of life issues in the current health care reform proposals. 

Mary Harned, Americans United for Life’s Staff Counsel cautions that there is still a long road ahead in the health care fight: “The mark-up of the Baucus bill will begin next Tuesday.  Even if language expressly excluding abortion funding and coverage is added to the bill, it will then need to be reconciled with the bill reported from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.  After that process, the bill will then: (1) go through an amendment process on the Senate Floor; (2) go to conference where it will be reconciled with whatever bill the House produces.”

 For further information, please visit AUL’s health care website: www.RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com

By Jessica Sage and Denise Burke

As Americans continue to debate proposals to reform the nation’s health care system, it is becoming increasingly clear that rationed healthcare is not just a concern for the elderly.  Recently, under Britain’s government-run health care system, doctors denied a premature baby necessary care and the child’s bereaved mother blames the National Health Service (NHS).  Specifically, the mother was told that her son who was born a few days shy of 22-weeks was too premature and that national guidelines prevented his treatment. 

Notably, the national guidelines at issue are not mandatory, but, in practice, effectively guide the decisions of NHS doctors.  Specifically, the guidelines (from the Nuffield Commission) recommend “intensive care should not be given to these babies [at less than 22 weeks development],” because it is extremely rare for a baby at that stage of development to survive and, if the baby does survive, he or she may suffer from a variety of disabilities and medical problems.  In sum, the guidelines view any effort to care for a premature infant as not cost effective. 

As the American public debates the inclusion of a public (or government) option in any health care reform package, NHS’s abject failure to care for premature infants gives us yet another example of how government-run healthcare all too often does not protect or respect life. 

When the government is the source of funding for health care, rationing is inevitable.  In an article on “Death Panels,” Will Wilkinson writes, “We’ve already got government rationing under Medicare and, frankly, the government is way too soft about it.”  He goes on to say, “We’ve known that Medicare is unsustainable for a long time now.  People flipping their lids about death panels and about government-funded doctors trying to sell seniors on suicide should have been flipping their lids years ago.” 

Clearly, it is not too late to “flip our lids.”  Medicare is not the standard of care we want.  Nor do we want limited government funding becoming the reason that life-sustaining or life-saving care is denied.  If the government—as a potential insurance provider—establishes guidelines dictating what is and what is not “futile care” and what lives are and are not worthy of treatment, it will direct doctors’ decisions and even override their medical judgment. 

Ultimate government health care guidelines may not be cast as mandatory and doctors’ decisions may not be initially dictated by them, but—as experienced in Britain—an anti-life attitude eventually creeps into the system.  This attitude professes that “hard choices” have to be made and government-run health care makes politicians and faceless bureaucrats the arbiters of what lives are valuable and thus cost effective to treat. 

Government-run healthcare will inevitably lead to rationed health care affecting the young, the old, the disabled, and the vulnerable.  It is the wrong choice for Americans.

Steven Ertelt, British Doctors Let Premature Baby Born at 22Weeks Die, NHS Blamed for Death (Sept 9, 2009) available at http://www.lifenews.com/int1317.html.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Independent ethics body proposes week-by- guidelines on treating premature babies (Nov 15, 2009) available at http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/neonatal/pressrelease_405.html

Will Wilkinson,  Death panels: Wrong name, right idea (Aug 26, 2009) available at
http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/99886/Death_panels_Wrong_name_right_idea