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.

It’s been a busy week.  As Denise Burke wrote yesterday, President Obama announced the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues—a commission likely to be comprised of people who think just like he does on the issues.  The administration also explicitly authorized the use of taxpayer dollars for destructive embryo research.  Of course, the administration continues to ignore the proven worth of adult stem cells.

Just this week, a new study revealed that adult stem cells can be used to repair hearts damaged by heart attack.  Previous treatments were only able to increase blood flow—not actually repair damage.  And unlike destructive embryo research, this procedure using adult stem cells is likely to be in general use within five years.

As the Miami Herald reported:

Researchers say it’s the strongest evidence so far that adult stem cells can actually differentiate, or turn into heart cells to repair damage. Until now, some researchers had believed that only controversial embryonic stem cells could differentiate into heart or other organ cells. The study suggests that adult stem cells — derived from bone marrow — are more flexible than previously thought.

“This is an exciting first step in a direction many thought cell therapy couldn’t go,” said Dr. Robert Simari, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester who was not involved in the trial. “It has demonstrated safety and good changes.”

So once again, adult stem cell research is producing cures.  And once again, adult stem cell research has been shown to have the potential to differentiate into other cells—an ability that embryonic stem cells were once thought to hold the monopoly.  And once again, the Obama administration is failing to support such research, choosing instead to advance research that has helped not a single patient.

And once again, it is blatantly clear that this administration is advancing an agenda—supporting the destruction of life for no purpose—and choosing not to support treatments that will cure.

The Miami Herald article can be found here.

Over the past week, the Obama Administration has made two key decisions on bioethics — both of which promote unethical and anti-life policies.

First, on November 24, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13521, establishing the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. The new Commission, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, will “advise the President on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology. The Commission shall pursue its work with the goal of identifying and promoting policies and practices that ensure scientific research, healthcare delivery, and technological innovation are conducted in an ethically responsible manner.” By deliberate design, the Commission will be heavily involved in determining the Administration’s policies regarding human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and already-proven and ethical forms of research such as the use of adult stem cells.

However, it is important to view the Order and the purported goals of this Commission in light of the fact that, in June 2009, President Obama dissolved the President’s Council on Bioethics established by President George W. Bush in 2001. As Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council has noted, the Council’s charter was not scheduled to end until September 2009 and, at the time there was concern that “it was booted early to clear the deck for a new bioethics group aligned with the [P]resident. But no new bioethics council was formed to fill the void. Seems likely the old bioethics council was just giving contrary signals to the President (10 of the 18 members criticized the President after his March 9 speech where he opened the possibility of using more human embryos for research, including creating cloned human embryos for experiments.) Given that the [National Institutes of Health] was preparing to promulgate new guidelines for using human embryos, including the steps to take for their destruction to allow federal taxpayer funding of their harvested cells, the ‘President’s’ bioethics council presented an official unwelcome burr under the saddle.”

The complete membership of the Commission has yet to be disclosed, but the Executive Order provides that “at least one and not more than three [of the Commission members] … may be bioethicists or scientists drawn from the executive branch, as designated by the President.” So, President Obama is in a position to appoint like-minded individuals to the Commission — individuals, who like the President, support life-destroying and unethical research while blithely ignoring the substantial promise of ethical forms of research including adult stem-cell research which has already yielded treatments and therapies for more than 70 diseases and conditions.

And just today, the Administration explicitly authorized the use of taxpayer dollars for destructive embryo research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has approved up to $21 million for research on 13 embryonic stem-cell lines — lines created through the destruction of days-old human embryos. Notably, in March 2009, President Obama rescinded President Bush’s August 2001 Executive Order limiting federal funding to research on then-existing embryonic stem-cell lines and prohibiting federal funding of the production of or research on newly-created embryonic stem-cell lines.

In making today’s announcement, NIH’s Frances Collins noted that “[w]hat we are announcing today is just the beginning.” According to LifeNews.com, “NIH is also reviewing hundreds of other embryonic stem cell lines for federal funding under the guidelines the agency issued to implement Obama’s order.”

The politically-driven audacity of these moves cannot be underestimated. Why are American taxpayers being forced to fund research that many consider immoral? Moreover, why are we investing in this immoral research when ethical forms of research are yielding real treatments for real patients while destructive embryo research has never yielded a single positive outcome? The answer would appear to be: “It’s politics, stupid.”

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.

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.

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!

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.

It was reported last week that, for the first time, surgeons in the U.K. have successfully treated an extremely ill heart patient with a combination of an artificial heart and his own stem cells.  The patient was fitted with a mechanical pump and then injected with 6 million of his own stem cells, in hope that those cells would repair damage in the patient’s heart.

This success raises questions for us in the United States.  First, why are embryonic stem cell advocates—and the President and his administration—still pushing for destructive research that has yet to successfully treat a single human person, while ignoring the need for substantial funding of adult stem cell research?  Once again, AUL is here to point out that adult stem cells have been used to treat or cure patients with over 70 different diseases and conditions, while there have been absolutely no successes with embryonic stem cell research.  We’re starting to feel like a broken record.

Yet the message is still not getting across.  To date, only sixteen states promote or encourage the use of umbilical cord cells and/or other forms of adult stem cells for research.

But an underlying question is also raised, one that is timely as we wait to find out what kind of health care we will be left with once the federal government takes over. 

In relaying the patient’s story, Sky News reported that NHS in the U.K. will not pay for this life-saving treatment.  Instead, the patient said he “relies on charity funding—or travels abroad to implant pumps in countries where governments are prepared to fund the £60,000 devices.” 

Interesting.  This patient—in a country with nationalized healthcare that is the predecessor to what President Obama is seeking for the United States—has to travel outside of the U.K. to other countries that are willing to pay for his treatment.

The surgeon himself stated, “I am very frustrated that all the work that I have done back home in the UK has to be translated into patient care in other countries,” and “”[w]e have helped to develop implantation programmes in France, Greece and Japan. It’s time we did it in the UK.”

He believes that this treatment protocol for heart patients could save 12,000 patients each year.

The article continues:

The Greek government has recently agreed to fund pumps for some patients with serious heart failure.

Professor Papakonstantinou [a heart surgeon at the Ahepa University Hospital in Thessaloniki] said they offer good value for money because patients are able to leave hospital and do not need drug treatment.

But in Britain, the NHS will only fund pumps in transplant patients who are waiting for a donor heart. Around 100 a year are implanted.

In a statement, the Department of Health said: “Before making such technology more widely available as an indefinite long-term treatment in end-stage heart failure, the NHS needs to ensure there is clear evidence of benefit.

Apparently 11,900 extra lives saved isn’t a clear enough benefit.
I’m not sure this is what most Americans have in mind when they think “health reform.”

The article from Sky News can be viewed at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/Artificial-Heart-And-Stem-Cells-Save-Mans-Life-In-Pioneering-Surgery-By-British-Surgeon/Article/200909415387553?lpos=Health_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15387553_Artificial_Heart_And_Stem_Cells_Save_Mans_Life_In_Pioneering_Surgery_By_British_Surgeon

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

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