The Idaho Senate has approved Senate Bill 1353, protecting health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences or risk losing their jobs or facing other negative job consequences.  The Idaho House had previously approved an identical measure.  The legislation now heads to Governor Otter’s desk.

The legislation provides that no health care professional “shall be required to provide any health care service that violates his or her conscience” and defines “health care service” to include abortion, the provision of abortifacient drugs, destructive research involving human embryos, human cloning, and end-of-life treatment and care.

Over the past several months, AUL has worked with allies in Idaho to pass this important legislation.  For example, AUL provided a factsheet outlining the need for comprehensive protections for health care rights of conscience.  This factsheet was provided to both House and Senate members prior to floor votes.

Currently, 47 states provide varying levels of protection for health care rights of conscience.  Idaho is poised to join Mississippi and Louisiana in enacting comprehensive protection for health care providers.  In 2004, Mississippi adopted AUL’s “Healthcare Rights of Conscience Act,” and Louisiana enacted its own protective measure in 2009.

Notable opponents of this legislation included Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the AARP.

News coverage of this legislation’s passage included an article from IdahoReporter.com that mentions AUL.

Response to claims made by Matthew Boudway of Commonweal:

1. Boudway:  Anyone who follows the arrows can see that no tax money is used to pay for abortions.

AUL:  The chart as a whole demonstrates how tax dollars will be used to pay for plans that cover abortions under the Senate/Obama health care reform bill.  Using tax dollars to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions is a radical departure from existing law — the Hyde amendment explicitly prohibits the use of federal funds to support plans that provide abortion.  The language of the Hyde amendment underscores the long-held understanding that subsidizing plans that provide abortion is tantamount to supporting abortion with federal funds.  This is explained in more detail below.

1. Boudway:  Nor is anyone forced by the Senate Bill to enroll in a plan that covers abortion. Those who do enroll in such a plan will have to pay a separate premium that goes into a segregated fund for abortion payments . . . According to the chart, enrollees would be required to pay the surcharge “even if [they] object or never plan to have an abortion.” This is true, just as it’s true that many who object to abortion and/or never plan to have an abortion (who does?) already pay for abortions through their health-insurance premiums. If people now want to avoid this, they can — but then, so could anyone under the system . . .

AUL:  No individual should have to pay for another person’s abortion in violation of his/her own conscience.  However, that is exactly what happens when pro-life individuals must pay into an insurance plan that covers abortions.  It is disingenuous to claim that individuals who do not want to pay for abortion coverage can choose an insurance plan that does not include it.  If John Doe works for XYZ, a small business, and XYZ decides to enroll John and the rest of its employees in an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage in an exchange, John and his coworkers will be forced to pay the surcharge.  It would be prohibitively expensive for them to do otherwise.

It is true that some individuals who object to abortion currently pay for abortions through their insurance premiums.  Some are just as trapped in the current system as John Doe would be trapped in the new system, and that is a tragedy.  However, it is fundamentally offensive for the government to institute a system in which pro-life Americans, or their employers on their behalf, would have to write a separate premium check to cover elective abortions.

1. Boudway:  The Senate Bill would not allow insurance exchanges to offer only plans that cover abortion.

AUL:  Our concern is not simply that prolife insurance companies might be shut out of insurance exchanges – our concern is that under mandate authorities in the bill, all private insurance companies could be required to cover abortion, regardless of whether they participate in the exchanges.  Specifically, an amendment added to the Senate health care reform bill on December 3, 2009 (sponsored by Sen. Mikulski (D-MD)) in pertinent part, requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance to provide coverage for and not impose cost sharing requirements on “preventive care” for women “as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).”

While this amendment does not explicitly require abortion coverage, it also fails to exclude it.  This concern was raised during the debate over the amendment, and Senator Murkowski (R-AK) offered an amendment that would have prevented the inclusion of abortion; however, her amendment was defeated.  The HRSA could categorize abortion as “preventive care,” and would therefore recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans.  The recommendation would force private plans to offer abortion coverage.

The Stupak Amendment would prohibit this, and the failure to include that prohibition in the Senate bill is another reason why the language is defective.

1. Boudway:  The double asterisks tell us that “if the Hyde Amendment is removed from LHHS approps, affordability credits could be used to directly pay for abortions,” but there is no reason to suppose that the Hyde Amendment will be removed from LHHS appropriations…

AUL:  It is incredible to claim that “there is no reason to suppose that the Hyde Amendment will be removed from LHHS appropriations.”  Pro-abortion organizations are bent on eliminating the Hyde Amendment, and many of the politicians they support are equally committed to the goal.  It is not cynical to see the carefully written abortion language in the Senate bill as the first step in a plan to eliminate any restrictions on federal funding for abortion.

The authors of the Senate/Obama language could have explicitly stated that affordability credits (and other funds in the bill, for that matter) cannot be used to pay for elective abortions.  That is how the abortion funding ban is written in the Stupak amendment to the House bill.  Instead, the Senate bill provides that affordability credits cannot be used to pay for those abortions that are currently prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. In other words, if the Hyde Amendment – an appropriations rider that must be renewed annually – were not included yearly, abortion would be covered by the affordability credits under the Senate/Obama bill (which would by then be law).

One must remember that Democratic leadership and the media claimed at the beginning of this debate that the Hyde Amendment would not be affected by health care reform, surely knowing that this fact was irrelevant since the funding mechanisms in the bills circumvented the Hyde Amendment (and do so to this day).

1. Boudway:  Finally, the triple asterisks inform us that “federal funding of insurance plans that cover abortions is a radical change from existing law.” . . . One reason the federal government has never before funded insurance plans that cover elective abortion is that it has never had to fund insurance for as many people as would receive affordability credits under the Senate Bill. You cannot just extend the Hyde Amendment to the new private-insurance exchanges without also translating it into a new legal structure. The Stupak Amendment does this rather nicely.

AUL:  We agree that a new structure is needed to incorporate the principles of Hyde into the new system, which is why we support the Stupak language and oppose the Senate bill that does not include Stupak.  The Stupak amendment and our position is reflected in current federal law.  The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), under which federal employees choose benefits, is modeled on the Hyde Amendment and does not permit one of those choices to be insurance plans that cover abortions.

1. Boudway:  Groups like Americans United for Life scare us with claims about what the Democrats’ health-insurance reform will do, and then, when asked for an explanation, fall back on hedged predictions about what it could do if this or that also happened – even when this and that seem quite unlikely.

AUL:  It is indisputable that when legislation relating to health care does not explicitly exclude abortion coverage or funding, administrative agencies and courts will include it.

Congress has passed the Hyde Amendment in LHHS appropriations each year since 1976, because the administrative agency administering Medicaid began paying for over 300,000 abortions a year.

In 1996, in Planned Parenthood v. Engler, the Sixth Circuit held that abortion “fall[s] within several of Medicaid’s mandatory categories of care” (family planning, outpatient services, inpatient services, and physician services) and that a state law that restricted funding for abortion to those necessary to save the mother’s life conflicts with the “mandate.”[1] Therefore, if Congress does not explicitly prohibit states from funding certain abortions with Medicaid (as Congress does through Hyde), states must fund them.

UPDATE: Boudway responds.

 On Monday February 22, 2010, following the release of President Obama’s new health care reform proposal, Nancy Ann Deparle, Director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform,   made the following statement on a conference call about how the Obama proposal addresses abortion: 

The starting point is the Senate bill with the Nelson language.  It’s not a perfect proposal, but it was crafted in a bipartisan manner.  It’s different from the House, but our effort was to not change the status quo on abortion.  I know it’s not ideal, but that’s the starting point we’re working from.

Her statement that the Senate abortion language was “crafted in a bipartisan manner” is inexplicable.   In fact, the Senate abortion language was crafted behind closed doors without a Republican in the room, which was evidenced by the fact that no Republican Senators voted in favor of it (as part of the manager’s amendment to the bill).  Instead of modeling the Senate abortion language after the House abortion language (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, with its bipartisan nature demonstrated by the political diversity of its cosponsors as well as the 64 Democratic members who voted for it), Majority Leader Reid decided to model the language after the pro-abortion Capps Amendment that was included in an early version of the House bill and in the Senate Finance Committee Bill.  Reid was able to tighten the language just enough to win over Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, who was holding the key 60^th vote. 

However, no rewording can hide what the Senate language does.  The genesis of the language aside, Ms. Deparle grossly misrepresents how it compares to existing law or the “status quo on abortion.” 

The most well known embodiment of the “status quo on abortion” is the Hyde Amendment, a funding limitation added annually to the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill.  However, there are numerous other laws that adopt the same principles in the Hyde Amendment – that no federal funds may be used to pay for abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother) or to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions. 

The Senate bill does not adopt the comprehensive approach to prohibiting federal funding of abortion found in the Hyde Amendment (and the House health care reform bill).  Instead, the Senate bill:

• Only prohibits the use of certain funds to pay for abortions, leaving open the possibility that other authorized funds – such as the 11 billion dollars provided for Community Health Centers –  will be used to pay for abortions.  Furthermore, even the paltry limitation in the bill is not built on solid ground – it is tied to the existence of the Hyde Amendment which is subject to elimination every year.  So, if the Hyde amendment is ever removed from LHHS appropriations, the limited prohibition on federal funding for abortion in the Senate health care reform bill will disappear as well.  Pro-abortion lawmakers are committed to getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, and it is perhaps not cynical to see this as the first step in a two-step plan to do that. 

• Allows federal dollars to directly subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions. Again, this contravenes existing law.  The most well-known example of the prohibition on the use of federal dollars to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions is the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

The Senate bill also fails to maintain the “status quo” on abortion in other ways.  The bill creates new broad mandate authorities for federal agencies and officials that could allow them to require private insurance companies to provide abortion coverage.  For example, under the Mikulski Amendment to the Senate bill, an administrative agency may determine that abortion is “preventive care” and then require all insurance companies to cover abortion.  If that happens, all Americans will be forced to pay for abortions through their insurance premiums, even in violation of their conscience. 

Speaking of conscience, while the Hyde-Weldon conscience amendment (added annually to LHHS appropriations) prohibits government entities from discriminating against health care entities that refuse to participate in abortions, the Senate bill only prohibits discrimination against health care entities by insurance plans participating in the new government exchanges.

Clearly, the Obama Administration is not trying to maintain the “status quo” on abortion with health care reform.  Health care reform is another weapon in the Administration’s arsenal to mainstream abortion in the United States.

For a detailed comparison of the Hyde Amendment, the House bill, and the Senate bill, including citations, please click here.

On Monday morning, February 22, 2010, President Obama unveiled a “new” health care reform proposal, purporting to combine ideas from the Senate-passed bill, the House-passed bill, and Republican proposals.  However, a careful examination of the White House proposal (which lacks actual legislative language) and statements made by members of the Obama Administration during a health care conference call on Monday reveal the truth – the “new” proposal is simply a modified version of the anti-life bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve. 

Unfortunately, while the White House was crafting modifications to the Senate bill, they failed to remove the anti-life language.  Therefore, all of AUL’s concerns about the bill’s abortion-related provisions, conscience provision, and end-of-life provisions remain.  Further, the White House proposal dramatically increases funding – by 11 billion dollars – for “community health centers” which will include Planned Parenthood abortion centers.  Because the proposal lacks a blanket prohibition on the use of federal funds for abortions, these new funds could be used to directly pay for abortions.

For detailed analyses of the anti-life provisions in the Senate health care reform bill, please see the following posts:

Legal Analysis of Life Concerns in President’s Proposal (Same as the Senate Health Care Reform Bill)

Abortion Tax and other Problems in President’s Proposal (Same as the Senate Health Care Reform Bill)

Abortion Funding Chart (In President’s Proposal and Senate Health Care Reform Bill)

Comparison Chart of Hyde Amendment, Senate Bill/President’s Proposal, and House Bill

Also, please see the letter which AUL’s sister organization, AUL Action, sent to President Obama on July 21, 2009.

Statement of Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life

“60 U.S. Senators just made history by voting to move forward with a bill that imposes a first-ever mandatory abortion tax on the American people. Majority Leader Reid held this vote in the middle of the night because he knows that the vast majority of Americans don’t want this new tax and don’t want tax dollars bankrolling insurance plans that cover abortion. A ‘yes’ vote is a solid ‘yes’ to the expansion of federal funding for abortion. We will be making this tragic decision clear to those constituents who have been misinformed that their Senator is pro-life.”

- Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of AUL Action

For more on the abortion tax and the bill itself, click here: http://blog.aul.org/

For more information or to schedule an interview please email press@aul.org

Senator Johanns is emphasizing that the Stupak-Pitts language is NOT in the Senate bill.  Therefore, it is not likely to be in the final bill (once the Senate version is reconciled with the House version).  He said that there are not enough prolife senators to add this provision to the bill.

Senator Johanns argues that the most important pro-life vote that a Senator will cast will be on tonight’s cloture vote on the motion to proceed. 

He highlighted that over 97% of bills that require a cloture vote on a motion to proceed go on to pass the Senate.  So, if cloture is achieved tonight, the bill will ultimately pass the Senate (without the Stupak-Pitts amendment language). 

Senator Johanns stated that this bill will radically expand abortion if it is not stopped.

Senator Hatch said that all we are asking for is to not have taxpayers pay for abortions.  Also, why should people who are opposed to abortion be forced to participate in one? The Stupak-Pitts language passed the House — why not the Senate?

Senator Brownback said that we are looking at federal funding of over 300,000 abortions a year if this bill passes without the Stupak-Pitts language.

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.

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.

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.”

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!

This week, the Senate Finance Committee is expected to report (vote) out of Committee Chairman Baucus’ version of 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 in the legislation language that would adequately prevent federal funding and coverage of abortion.

Recent intelligence from the Hill indicates that a purported “compromise” on abortion funding and coverage in health care reform is in the works.  Rumor has it that the template for the language will be Rep. Lois Capps’ (D-CA) amendment that was added to the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) during the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up.

In response to the backlash against her amendment, Rep. Capps sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi, arguing that her amendment “was carefully written to preserve the status quo regarding the ban on federal funding for abortion services.”  In reality, the Capps Amendment, and the similar language in the Senate Finance Committee Bill, is a radical departure from the status quo.  Here are Rep. Capps’ arguments in support of her amendment, followed by AULA’s responses.

Rep. Capps:  “The Capps compromise applies the current Hyde amendment to health care reform.  It prohibits federal funding for abortion beyond the cases of rape, incest or life of the woman.  If a health plan chooses to offer abortion coverage beyond these exceptions, it cannot use federal funds to do so.”

AULA:  This statement is inaccurate.  Hyde does not apply since reform would be funded outside of HHS (to which Hyde applies).  Nor, is anything like Hyde part of the Capps Amendment.  While the Hyde Amendment prevents any federal funds from paying for elective abortions through Medicaid, the Capps Amendment explicitly allows the Secretary of HHS to require funding for elective abortions in the public option.  Furthermore, the Capps Amendment permits government subsidies to go to private health care plans that cover elective abortion.  While participating health care plans are supposed to “provide assurances” that no federal funds are used directly to pay for abortions, that does not change the fact that federal dollars are going to plans that cover elective abortions. 

Rep. Capps:  “[N]o money from the Treasury will be directed to abortion services . . . [because] money is transmitted to a private contractor who then reimburses physicians. . . .”

AULA:  The fact that the U.S. Treasury will transmit funds to private contractors, who then pay physicians (i.e. abortionists), does not magically transform the money from federal money to private money!  Furthermore, as previously stated, a private plan’s “assurances” that they are not using federal subsidies to pay for abortions is not enough – no private plans that cover abortions should receive federal subsidies.  Contrast this with current law under the Hyde Amendment.  Under the Hyde Amendment, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) cannot include any plans that cover elective abortion.  In other words, no federal subsidies go to health care plans that include abortion coverage.  That is the status quo –the federal government does not subsidize elective abortion coverage.

Rep. Capps:  “[I]n 17 states Medicaid provides coverage for abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions.” 

AULA:  The truth is that under the current version of the Hyde Amendment to Medicaid, states MAY NOT use federal funds or their matching funds to pay for abortions.  If states want to pay for elective abortions, they must use their own revenues that are completely separate from the Medicaid program.  In other words, states must appropriate additional funds, not Medicaid-matching funds, to pay for abortions. In the same way, any states that wish to pay for elective abortions for women who qualify for subsidized health care under the health reform bills may choose to set up their own programs – nothing is stopping them.  However, in order for health care reform to remain consistent with the status quo, no federal dollars can go to insurance plans that cover abortion.

Rep. Capps:  “[T]here is also a requirement in my amendment that in each region, there must be at least one health plan available that does not cover abortion services.”

AULA:  Rep. Capps fails to mention that there is also a requirement that every region include at least one health plan that covers elective abortion.  In other words, under her amendment, for the first time, the Federal government will ensure that there is a private insurance plan within everyone’s reach that covers abortion. 

Rep. Capps closes the letter stating that she “worked with great diligence to craft a common ground solution.”  However, there is no “common ground” in the “status quo” on federal funding and coverage of abortion.  Today, elective abortion is not covered or funded under federal law.  Make no mistake — the Capps amendment will change the status quo to embrace federal funding and coverage of abortion.

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.

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.

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

In his address to a Joint Session of Congress this evening, President Obama repeated his claim that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.”  However, he failed to commit to supporting language that explicitly prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion.

AUL’s President and CEO, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, expressed disappointment in the President’s address, stating, “President Obama has previously articulated a desire to see a decrease in the number of abortions performed in the United States.  Yet he is throwing his support behind legislation that will equate abortion with basic health care.”  Dr. Yoest further explained that “Americans understand that abortion is not health care, and that the women and unborn children in our country deserve better.” 

AUL’s Staff Counsel, Mary Harned, said, “No matter how President Obama and Congress change the structure of the health care reform proposals — whether there is a public option, co-op, exchange, or the like — any legislation that provides government funding for health care must contain explicit language that excludes abortion.  Abortion is not health care; however, based on how courts have interpreted Medicaid, we know that courts will interpret any legislation relating to government-funded health care as requiring abortion coverage unless there is an explicit prohibition (like Hyde).”

In their legal memoranda, AUL’s legal team has carefully explained how existing law will not prevent the health care bills from mandating taxpayer funding of abortion.  They also documented how seven circuit courts have held that abortion is covered under Medicaid, necessitating an explicit prohibition on the inclusion of abortion.  Dr. Yoest stated that “courts will certainly interpret any legislation that provides federal funding for health care as they have interpreted Medicaid in the past.  So, any health care reform must include an explicit prohibition on abortion funding and coverage.”

Current proposals mandate abortion coverage and funding in a number of ways, including:

1. An amendment to H.R. 3200 permits and may require abortion coverage in the public health insurance plan, and permits taxpayer funding of private plans that cover elective abortion through the provision of affordability credits
2. The Senate HELP bill delegates to a “Medical Advisory Committee” the role of deciding what benefits any private or public health care plan must offer. This Committee is expected to include abortion as a required minimum benefit.
3. Prior court holdings that state that abortion is included within several of Medicaid’s mandatory categories of care (inpatient services, outpatient services, and preventative care) will certainly apply to any federal statute revising Medicaid and involving health care reform.
4. The rejection of several key pro-life amendments in the House and Senate Committees, which would have ensured that abortion was not funded in the bills, demonstrates that the bills are intended to mandate abortion.

Today, Americans United for Life, the nation’s oldest national pro-life organization, launched its “Back to the Hill” campaign to educate lawmakers and Americans on the current health care proposals’ threats to the lives of the elderly, ill, and unborn. 

AUL’s sister organization AUL Action (AULA) sent a letter today to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to protest recent disinformation on her Web site about abortion in health care.  AULA is also meeting with the White House on September 17 to discuss the problem of taxpayer-funded abortion in the proposed health care reform.

Americans United for Life will be paying close attention to President Obama’s address this evening before a joint session of Congress.   President Obama has stated that claims that abortion was in the health care proposals were a “fabrication,” and has claimed that he aims to reduce the “need” for abortions.   However, on the campaign trail in 2007, Obama assured a Planned Parenthood Action Fund conference that abortion would be “at the center and the heart” of his health care reform, and the current health care proposals reflect that priority. AUL’s legal team has detailed the elements in the proposals that would mandate taxpayer-funded abortion coverage.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of AUL, said, “Tonight, President Obama needs to address the abortion mandate in the health care reform proposals currently before Congress.  History has shown that where abortion is not explicitly excluded, courts will interpret legislative language to mandate it.” 

William Saunders, AUL Sr. Vice President of Legal Affairs, added, “An explicit and permanent prohibition on abortion coverage and funding is essential to prevent Congress, or an activist court, from mandating coverage and taxpayer funding of all elective abortions under the guise of health care.” 

AUL will be tweeting and liveblogging President Obama’s speech tonight. 

AUL’s Health Care Information Hub: Real Health Care Respects Life.com:

• Back to the Hill Guide: What to Expect Next
• FAQ about Health Care Reform
• Talking Points
• Video: Obama on Abortion in Health Care
• Health Care Bills in Congress
• End-of-Life Issues in Bills
• Federal Courts on Abortion in Current Bills
• Federal Courts on Abortion and Medicaid Coverage
• Status of the Hyde Amendment