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.

Statement of Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest on new Senator Scott Brown:

“Americans United for Life would like to congratulate Senator Scott Brown on his swearing-in today and welcome him to Washington. Although the Senator’s support for Roe v. Wade has been widely reported, Senator Brown also opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, supports a ban on partial birth abortion and supports promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion. On these and on many other issues, we can find common ground with the new Senator and we look forward to working with him.”

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

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.”

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.

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.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Sunday that a Los Angeles man, Joshua Woodward, has been arrested for the intentional homicide of his unborn child. As public comments on the case posted to the online Chronicle story show, this kind of prosecution provokes public confusion. Here are some answers to questions not addressed in the Chronicle’s coverage.

Is this a new phenomenon?

No. Fetal homicide or “unborn victims of violence” laws have been enacted in 37 states. And prosecutors actively enforce and use them.

Since the mid-1980s, when we drafted model bills to counter fetal homicide, Americans United for Life has been at the forefront of developing and defending legislation to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent crime. We have aided legislators by providing scholarly analyses of such legislation, pointing out that Roe v. Wade doesn’t block state laws protecting unborn victims outside the context of abortion. My 1987 Valparaiso Law Review article on such statutes has been cited by a number of courts in upholding fetal-homicide laws.

Due in part to our efforts, the status of fetal-homicide law has undergone a substantial change between the 1970s and the 1990s. Back in the 1970s, courts often applied Roe to strike down or limit fetal-homicide laws, on the basis that the states couldn’t protect the unborn by law at all. By the 1990s, virtually all state and federal courts recognized that Roe only applied to the abortion context and that fetal-homicide laws were enforceable as long as they weren’t applied to abortion.

How long has California’s law been in effect?

California’s statute was enacted in 1970, before the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 legalized abortion nationwide. Legislators were provoked by California court’s throwing out a homicide charge for killing an unborn child, relying on the common-law born-alive rule.

What’s the “born-alive rule”?

The born-alive rule, a rule of medical evidence, was first adopted in 1600 due to primitive medical conditions which made it difficult to distinguish between a child killed in the womb and a child stillborn from natural causes. The factual difference was critical, in a time of high infant mortality, because a charge of homicide was a capital crime. The born alive rule meant that a homicide charge could only be brought if the unborn child was “born alive” and died thereafter, so that the evidentiary causes could be more clearly determined.

How can such charges be brought if Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in every state?

Roe only applies to a voluntary abortion that falls within the mother’s “right”; Roe does not apply to an unborn child killed in the non-abortion context and does not protect a third party assailant who kills an unborn child.

At what point in pregnancy can the states protect the unborn child under fetal-homicide laws?

Because Roe does not apply to the involuntary killing of the unborn child, it means that the states can protect the child in the non-abortion context from conception. In fact, 25 of the 37 states with fetal homicide statutes have enacted legal protection from conception. California’s statute has been interpreted by California courts as applying to an unborn child as early as 8-10 weeks gestation. Since investigators in the California case estimate that the unborn child was approximately 13 weeks old, this killing will likely fall within the statute (assuming other facts in the investigation allow prosecutors to otherwise move ahead).

These cases also demonstrate that homicide or fetal-homicide statutes are more significant, as a practical matter, for protecting the unborn child than state “personhood” amendments,” because homicide or fetal homicide statutes actually prohibit the killing itself (personal or private behavior that falls within the criminal law), while state personhood amendments only limit action taken by the three branches of government.

In this post-Roe environment, where abortion for any reason is legal through all nine months of pregnancy, what do fetal-homicide laws ultimately accomplish?

A great deal. First, unlike Roe v. Wade, they require that the law–in this case, homicide law–actually treat the unborn child as a human being strictly speaking. Second, they provoke public education about the schizophrenia between Roe and the effective state enforcement of fetal-homicide laws in 37 states. This is particularly significant in a state like California, which passed its fetal-homicide law in 1970, before Roe and before politics in that state swung radically to the left. Last, and most importantly, they increase legal protection of the unborn child, beyond what it was before Roe. And they are strongly supported by popular opinion.

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.

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

8:45 p.m. – Obama is promoting a public option. This would undoubtedly ensure that he would keep the promise he made to Planned Parenthood that abortion would be at the “center and heart” of his health care plan. See video on RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com in which he makes that promise.

8:50 p.m. – “I WILL PROTECT MEDICARE!” Obama shouts, to wild applause.

8:55 p.m. – Warns he will not “waste time with those who think it is better politics to kill this plan than to approve it. … I will not accept the status quo as a solution.”

8:55 p.m. – Warns that “more will die” if nothing is done. Yikes.

8:56 p.m. – Brings up “our beloved colleague” Ted Kennedy. Says that Kennedy wrote to him in May that “fundamental principles of social justice” are at stake. Well, we all know what Kennedy thought of the “fundamental principles of social justice” as they related to abortion. To him, abortion WAS social justice.

9:02 p.m. – Says he will not follow those who suggest deferring health care reform to his next term. Raises voice to say that health care reform is “our calling.” The One has spoken. End of speech. Visit AUL’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com for the truth about how all the current health care reform proposals on Capitol Hill threaten the elderly, the ill, and the unborn, and bookmark the AUL Blog for further updates.

8:10 p.m. – As we await the President’s appearance, some words from AUL Staff Counsel Mary Harned, who has seen an advance copy of part of Obama’s speech: “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, etc. — 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).”

8:12 p.m. – The President is introduced.

8:17 p.m. – Obama starts by recounting America’s economic woes. “I will not let up until Americans who seek jobs can find them.” Applause.

8:18 p.m. – Claims that his “bold and decisive action” since January has “pulled the economy back from the brink.”

8:19 p.m. – “I am not the first President to take up this cause [health care], but I am determined to be the last.” Applause.

8:20 p.m. – “Our collective failure to meet this challenge … has led us to the breaking point.” He is trying to highlight a sense of urgency.

8:21 p.m. – “We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy” [perhaps correcting himself due to speed-reading his Teleprompter] that “allows such hardship” (as being uninsured) for millions of its people.

8:22 p.m. – He’s now running down a list of horror stories about problems of uninsured people in America.

8:25 p.m. – “Our health care system is putting an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.” And YOUR agenda will cost us HOW much, Mr. President? Have you looked at your own CBO’s figures?

8:26 p.m. – Obama says that some think the only way to fix the system is to have a single-payer system like that in Canada. Someone in the hall thinks it’s an applause line. He goes on to say that he’d rather “build on what works and fix what doesn’t rather than building an entirely new system from scratch.” But the current House plan would in fact build an entirely new system.

8:28 p.m. – Starts complaining about “scare tactics” by opponents of Obamacare. “The time for bickering is over.” He’s raising his voice. “NOW IS THE SEASON FOR ACTION!” Applause.

8:29 p.m. – Claims his plan would “slow the growth of health care costs.” But is it a new plan — his own? He’s not specifying that he is in fact offering a plan.

8:29 p.m. – “Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” But what is “our” plan? He’s implying he has his own plan, but hasn’t actually said he’s offering one. As Michael Steele said in Politico (will link the article shortly), there is NO plan currently in Congress that has all the things the Prez claims “our plan” has.

8:32 p.m. – He’s running down a long list of what his plan will offer. It’s much like RNC Chairman Michael Steele wrote earlier today:

Here’s what we know for sure – the president will give a good speech Wednesday night. He always does. We also know that he will say a lot of things that the American public likes and agrees with when it comes to health care reform. He always does.

But there is one small problem. Speaker Pelosi’s bill, a bill that the president has endorsed, doesn’t have anything in common with the president’s eloquent, poll-tested rhetoric. In fact, no Democrat proposal exists from the president or any of his congressmen that has anything in common with the president’s rhetoric.

8:35 p.m. – Says his plan will REQUIRE individuals to carry basic health insurance, just like drivers are required to carry auto insurance.

8:36 p.m. – “While there remain some significant aspects of the plan to be ironed out” — this line is met with laughter.

8:38 p.m. – Anger erupts from the crowd as Obama insists his reform would not cover illegal immigrants.

8:38 p.m. – “No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” WHAT conscience laws — the regulations he put on ice when he took office? And to say that federal dollars will not be used to fund abortions is misleading, as every plan in Congress right now would mandate abortion funding. Unless the President plans to immediately demand that abortion be explicitly excluded from any health care plan, the courts, under existing laws, will be required to read abortion into any plan passed by Congress. See AUL’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com for details on this.

Liveblogging will continue presently in a new post.

Tomorrow afternoon, President Obama is to award the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom to 16 recipients, including numerous prominent proponents of legalized abortion and destruction of embryos, such as Sen. Ted Kennedy; Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; Nancy Brinker, whose Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer fund donates to Planned Parenthood; Ireland President Mary Robinson; Rev. Joseph Lowery, who claims that abortion is not an issue for black Americans; Billie Jean King, who worked with the abortion-advocacy group EMILY’s List, and Janet Rowley, who championed embryonic stem-cell research and other destructive initiatives while on the President’s Council on Bioethics.

The White House Media Affairs office has sent me a media invitation to the ceremony, so I will report on it from the scene via Twitter. If you haven’t yet signed up for AUL’s Twitter feed, do so today to get all the details of tomorrow’s event, plus updates on pro-life news items as they happen.