Americans United for Life’s legislative arm Americans United for Life Action endorses a key vote today on the House floor of the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment, an Amendment that blocks any federal money from going to abortion in health care reform

Americans United for Life Action’s President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “Americans United for Life Action strongly supports the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment to prohibit abortion mandates and funding in HR 3962.  As currently drafted H.R. 3962 fails to adequately prevent abortion coverage and funding.”

H.R. 3962 explicitly allows qualifying individuals to apply their affordability credits to private insurance plans that cover abortion. The bill also permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (”HHS”) to offer coverage for abortions in the Public Option. Furthermore, if the Hyde Amendment, which lapses if not renewed yearly, is ever eliminated from HHS Appropriations, the bill would mandate coverage of all abortions under the public plan. In addition, the bill also requires that at least one private plan in every premium rating area must provide coverage for all abortions.”

Dr. Yoest added, “The passage of a health care reform bill with these provisions is unacceptable to pro-life Americans.  We strongly encourage the U.S. House of Representatives to vote in favor of the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment when it comes to the floor for a vote.”

AUL Action sent a letter this morning to members of the House of Representatives expressing our deep concern over life-related provisions in the bill.

The letter alerted House Members that AUL Action will score the vote on the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment,

AUL Action will also oppose the final passage of H.R. 3962  and record the roll call vote on the final passage in our annual scorecard.

AUL Action has also alerted our pro-life grassroots network that this vote is critical to the pro-life movement and urged them to immediately contact their Congressmen. 

Americans United for Life’s legal analysis of H.R. 3962 is explained in detail here. 

Americans United for Life Action is the legislative arm of Americans United for Life, the first national pro-life organization in America. In 1980, AUL successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae.  Visit AUL Action’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com, for background from our legal team about the current health care reform bills threat to the right to life and rights of conscience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Friday the House Rules Committee is expected to report out a rule governing debate on H.R. 3962, the House health care reform bill.  It is likely that this rule will include language called the “Ellsworth Amendment,” after Congressman Brad Ellsworth of Indiana.  This language is being touted as a pro-life amendment.  In reality, the Ellsworth Amendment does little more than tweak the pro-abortion provisions in the House bill.  Below is a list of the items in the Ellsworth Amendment, as well as brief commentary on their impact.

The Ellsworth Amendment:

• Adds the phrase “or other federal funds” to Subtitle C (341)(c)(3), the provision that prohibits the use of affordability credits to pay directly for Hyde-prohibited abortions (Page 1). 

[While supporters of the language will argue that this ensures that no federal dollars will pay for abortion, it does not alter the fact that, in a break from the status quo, affordability credits (government funds) will subsidize private insurance plans that include abortion coverage.]

• Adds the phrase “or other Federal funds used by an Exchange-participating health benefits plan” to Section 303(e)(2), the provision that addresses the “segregation of funds” (which is supposed to ensure that only “private” dollars, not federal dollars, are used to pay for abortions) (Page 1). 

[Again, this provision does not alter the fact that affordability credits will subsidize private insurance plans that include abortion coverage, a break from the status quo.]

• Notes that the segregation of funds will be done in accordance with “generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office”  (Page 1).

[Whatever accounting mechanisms are used, this does not change the fact that federal dollars will subsidize insurance plans that include abortion coverage.]

• Adds the word “some” to Section 303(e)(1)(B), which requires that every area of the country have a pro-life insurance plan (Page 2). 

[Adding "some" permits pro-life plans to choose among Hyde-permitted abortions they wish to cover, rather than taking an all or nothing approach.]

• Adds a provision to Section 222(e)(1) that prohibits discrimination against insurance plans based on their decisions to cover or not cover abortions (Page 2)

[This “nondiscrimination” provision appears to make explicit what is implicit in the bill; however, what it fails to address is that the bill parts from the status quo by allowing government subsidies to go to private plans that include abortion coverage.]

• Sets up a system whereby private contractors will handle the claims processing for the public option (and will therefore handle segregating the so-called “private” funds used for abortions) (Pages 2-4). 

[The fact that the federal government will farm out the responsibility for subsidizing abortion coverage to independent contractors does not change the fact that the public option will cover abortion.]

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment continues to be the only language on the table in the House that will truly exclude abortion funding from health care reform.  However, it is expected that the Rules Committee will not allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.  It is critical that this language be included in any health care reform bill that passes out of either the House or the Senate.

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.

Yesterday, the House Rules Committee announced that the “rule” for considering the sweeping health care legislation will encompass the language put forward by Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. that the House leadership is falsely describing as pro-life. By allowing the Ellsworth language, House Democratic leaders hope to address the reluctance of pro-life Democrats to vote for the health bill. 

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life said, “The Ellsworth Amendment will explicitly authorize federally funded abortions in the public option. Putting a pro-life label on the amendment doesn’t change that fact. The only way to ensure that health care reform does not mandate abortion funding and coverage is to include explicit language similar to the Hyde Amendment, such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.” 

The Ellsworth proposal does not alter the provisions in H.R. 3962 that explicitly allow federal funding of abortion through the public option, and permit federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that cover abortion.  The Ellsworth language simply provides details for how funds will be segregated, and that they will be distributed by an independent contractor. 

Americans United for Life’s legal analysis of H.R. 3962 is explained in detail here.

Americans United for Life is the first national pro-life organization in America. In 1980, AUL successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae.  Visit AUL Action’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com, for background from our legal team about the current health care reform bills threat to the right to life and rights of conscience.

In her blog entry on The Daily Beast, Dana Goldstein records pro-abortion leader Judy Waxman’s incredible statement that the new House health care bill, H.R. 3962, “leans toward the pro-life position.”  To support this conclusion Goldstein’s entry relies on statements from several abortion rights advocates.  However, the current version of the House bill is neither “pro-life,” nor “abortion neutral.”  H.R. 3962 attempts to mainstream abortion as health care and have the federal government pay for it.  It is a radical departure from current federal law. 

Below are four assertions made in Goldstein’s post followed by AUL’s responses demonstrating the statements are false and misleading.

1. The House bill requires the public-insurance option, expected to cover some 6 million people, to provide abortion primarily in cases of rape, incest, or threats to a woman’s physical health.  That limited language echoes the Hyde Amendment, a rider to the appropriations bill that has passed each year since 1976 and currently prevents federal funding of most abortion for Medicaid patients, government employees, Peace Corps workers, and women in prison.  But because the House health bill actually cements the restriction in law—as opposed to in a rider—some pro-choicers see the provision as a step backward. “It establishes a different baseline,” Waxman said. 

The House bill does not echo the Hyde Amendment’s restrictions.  The language of H.R. 3962 is only “limited” in the sense that on its face the bill mandates only coverage in the public option of those Hyde-permitted abortions (in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother). H.R. 3962 does not prohibit funding other abortions and in fact explicitly allows the HHS Secretary to include all abortions in the public option. (Section 222(e)(3)). 

H.R. 3962 does establish a different baseline, but not in the way Waxman describes.  It changes the status quo from prohibiting federal funding of abortion (except in narrowly defined categories) to allowing the use of federal dollars to finance all abortions in the public option.  And, since the decision would be made by pro-abortion HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, it is likely that Section 222(e)(3) will be used to extend the abortion funding mandate to cover all abortions.

What will be cemented through H.R. 3962 is exactly the opposite of the Hyde Amendment, which has passed every year for 33 years.  Instead of codifying restrictions on abortion funding, H.R. 3962 codifies an abortion funding mandate.

2. The bill also prevents affordability credits from being used to pay for abortion coverage … Eighty-seven percent of existing private insurance plans cover abortion… After reform, if insurers want to continue to provide such care, the House bill would require them to segregate all government funding from the co-pays individuals pay into the plans. Abortions could only be paid for out of the “private” side of the ledger.

The bill allows private health insurance plans that cover elective abortion to receive government subsidies (Section 222(e)(2)) The bill includes language purporting to segregate “federal dollars” from “private dollars” that are used to pay for abortions (Sections 303(e)(2); 341(c)(3)) – but nothing alters the fact that this provision allows government dollars to go to private plans that cover abortion.

This is not a “pro-life” or even “abortion neutral” provision.  It changes the status quo on federal funds being used towards insurance plans that provide abortion coverage.  In the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the government contributes to premiums of federal employees in order to allow them to purchase private health insurance. The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill that provides funding for the FEHB program has annually prohibited these government contributions from being used towards insurance plans that cover abortion since 1983 (with the exception of 1993-1995). 

3. In addition, in each state, the health-insurance market must include one plan that does cover abortion, and one plan that does not. But because the vast majority of insurers currently do cover the procedure, pro-choicers view the provision as a step forward for the opposition. “That kind of leans toward the pro-life position,” Waxman said.

The bill does require that there be one insurance company in each region that does not directly reimburse for abortion.  However, calling this measure pro-life leaning ignores the fact that for the first time the government is mandating that there be a private insurance company that does provide abortion coverage in each region. 

Another provision of H.R. 3962 severely limits the extent an insurance company is allowed to be “pro-life.” Sec. 304(d) prevents any private insurance company participating in the Exchange from choosing not to contract with abortion providers. 

4. Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health issues, told The Daily Beast, “Currently, it’s not that we can’t pay for coverage that includes abortions. It’s that we can’t cover abortions. The [Stupak] standard is stricter than the standard in Hyde.”

The “Stupak standard” is not stricter than current federal law.  No federal dollars are used to pay for elective abortions or to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions, period. That includes Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and other programs.   As explained above, insurance plans that include abortion coverage cannot receive government subsidies through the FEHBP.  In other words, federal employees cannot choose plans that include abortion coverage. 

The status quo is that federal dollars do not pay for abortions and that federal dollars do not subsidize insurance plans that include abortion coverage.

Sonfield was correct when he stated “Just because there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans doesn’t mean there are a lot more pro-choice people.”  There are a number of pro-life Democrats in Congress who disagree with their Party’s platform on abortion.  A similar observation can be made about the American public — a majority of Americans identify themselves as “pro-life.” 

It is important to note that an even greater majority of Americans do not support federal funding of abortion.  Opposing federal subsidies for abortion is not just a “pro-life” position. 

H.R. 3962’s abortion funding provisions are not what the majority of Americans want.  They are not what President Obama promised in September when he told a joint session of Congress, “under our plan no federal dollars would be used to fund abortion.”  They are not “pro-life” leaning.

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

LifeSiteNews reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. House health care overhaul bill H.R. 3962 could receive a vote as early as Thursday.  H.R. 3962 would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion.

Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “If this week’s House health care bill passes without an amendment to explicitly exclude abortion coverage and funding, the American taxpayer will be funding abortion on demand.  The status quo of over 30 years of banning taxpayer-funded abortions will be replaced by an unprecedented era of federal abortion funding.”

This week, Americans United for Life and its legislative arm AUL Action are informing citizens about pro-abortion politicians who are working to ram through taxpayer-funded abortion in health care reform: 

•  Webcast: Americans United for Life joined the largest coalition of pro-life organizations Stop the Abortion Mandate in hosting a critical webcast last night to unify the pro-life movement in fighting abortion in health care reform.  Thousands of pro-life activists participated in this important webcast last night.
• New TV Ad: AUL Action is premiering a new :30 second TV ad on CNN in collaboration with the Stop the Abortion Mandate coalition. This TV ad will dispels the myths about abortion in health care reform.
• New Online Video Ad: AUL Action’s new online video ad “Don’t Be Fooled: Abortion is in Health Care Reform” is spreading across the online world to raise awareness among the pro-life grassroots about federally funded abortion in the current health care reform proposals.
• Score Letter to Congress: A letter sent by AUL Action to members of the House of Representatives states that if the Stupak-Pitts amendment to remove abortion funding is not given a vote under the Rule governing Floor debate on the House bill, AUL Action will oppose the Rule and record the roll call vote on the Rule in our annual scorecard.  Furthermore, if the final language of the bill does not adequately meet any of AUL Action’s concerns expressed in our letter, AUL Action will oppose final passage of the bill and will record the roll call vote on final passage in our annual scorecard as well.

Americans United for Life is the first national pro-life organization in America.  In 1980, AUL successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae.   AUL’s legislative arm AUL Action recently met with the White House to discuss abortion funding and coverage in health care.  Visit AUL Action’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com, for background from our legal team about the current health care reform bills threat to the right to life and rights of conscience.

Today’s news stories on abortion in health care:

• AP: 2 tough health care issues remain in the House
• UPI: Abortion could upend House healthcare bill
• FOX News: Abortion Part of Health Care Reform Still in Question
• Washington Post: Democrats’ concerns over abortion may imperil health bill: Bloc could withhold support over fears of a governmental role
• Life News: House Democrats’ Phony Amendment Claims to Remove Abortion Funding From Health Care 

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

You would think that would be the end of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The new version of health care reform unveiled by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi fails to exclude abortion funding and coverage – in fact, it explicitly includes it.  Below is AUL’s legal analysis of the abortion provisions in the bill, as well as an analysis of the conscience protection, Comparative Effectiveness Research, and End-of-life provisions in the bill.

            I.      Abortion

          The new House health care bill, H.R. 3962 includes the same problematic provisions found in the Capps Amendment added to H.R. 3200 (the former House health care reform bill).[1]  The new bill:

• Allows private health insurance plans that cover elective abortion to receive government subsidies (Section 222(e)(2)) (The bill also includes the Capps provision that purports to segregate the “federal dollars” from “private dollars” that are used to pay for abortions (Sections 303(e)(2); 341(c)(3)) – but nothing alters the fact that this provision allows government dollars to go to private plans that cover abortion);
• Permits the public option to include abortion coverage (Section 222(e)(3));
• Ensures that one plan in every coverage area covers abortion (Section 303(e)(1)(A)).

H.R. 3962 also states that funds provided for school-based clinics cannot be used for abortions (Sec. 399Z-1(c)(2))) and that school-based clinics are defined as not providing abortions (Sec. 399Z-1(l)(3)(E)).  However, this provision does not prohibit abortion referrals.

Finally, Section 804 ties Indian Health Services (IHS) funding for abortion to the Hyde Amendment (added annually to the Health and Human Services (HHS) Appropriations Bill).  Therefore, if the Hyde Amendment is not added to the HHS Bill in a given year, there will be no ban on abortion funding under the IHS.

         II.      Conscience Protection

Initially, H.R. 3962 appears to contain strong conscience protection.  Section 259, entitled “nondiscrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience,” mirrors existing law, i.e., the clear protections for those who oppose abortion provided through the Hyde/Weldon conscience amendment (which must be added to an appropriations bill annually).  However, Section 304(d) protects abortionists from “discrimination” by pro-life insurance plans who want to participate in the exchange, but do not want to contract with abortionists. 

The question becomes how these two provisions will be reconciled.  Section 259 provides that an insurance company cannot be discriminated against for not covering abortion.  However, Section 304(d) provides that an “exchange participating plan” cannot discriminate against a health care provider/entity that provides abortions.  Who wins – the abortion provider or the pro-life insurance company whose conscience prohibits them from contracting with abortionists?

     III.      Comparative Effectiveness Research

Section 1401 addresses the use of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER).  CER is used to compare the benefits and harms of methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition and improve delivery of health care.  At AUL, we believe that any CER provision must include language to ensure that the results of CER will not be used to mandate or encourage the withdrawal or curtailment of effective life-sustaining treatment for the terminally ill, the chronically ill, or the permanently disabled.

Section 1401(h) provides that CER will not be used to “mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.”  It also provides that none of the CER reports “shall be construed as mandates, for payment, coverage, or treatment.”  Furthermore, the section provides that “nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine.”  AUL continues to evaluate whether these provisions are sufficient to prevent the inappropriate use of CER.

      IV.      End of Life

Section 240 requires the dissemination of advance care (end of life) planning information by Qualified Health Benefits Plans (QHBP).  Section (a)(3) provides that a QHBP “shall not promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.”  The information disseminated “shall not presume the withdrawal of treatment and shall include end-of-life planning information that includes options to maintain all or most medical interventions.”

Section 240(b) provides that nothing in this section shall be construed to require an individual to complete an advanced directive or a physician’s order for life sustaining treatment or other end-of-life planning documents, to require an individual to consent to restrictions in medical benefits, or to promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

Section (d)(1) prohibits materials distributed by QHBP’s from listing assisted suicide as an option.  Section (d)(2) clarifies that nothing in (d)(1) applies or affects any options for withholding treatment, nutrition, palliative/hospice care.  Finally, section (d)(3) provides that the bill doesn’t preempt state laws.

While these protections appear strong, H.R. 3962 does not provide definitions for terms such as “assisted suicide,” and the broader language that included a prohibition on providing materials that promoted the intentional “hastening of death”  which was adopted in the Energy and Commerce Committee was removed from H.R. 3962.  Broader language is necessary because while Oregon and Washington have laws permitting assisted suicide, the laws state that what they permit is not assisted suicide.  Language must me explicit and broad to ensure that this provision does not create a large loophole for the promotion of assisted suicide.

Section 1233 creates “advance care planning consultations” as a new optional Medicare-covered benefit. The consultation must be between a physician or other health care professional and the patient, and may be conducted every five years or more often if the patient’s condition deteriorates.

The section specifies that “[n]othing in this section shall–…encourage the promotion of suicide or assisted suicide.”  However, this section, like Section 240, fails to define “assisted suicide.”  Therefore, states that have legalized assisted suicide by another name may argue that Medicare should pay for end-of-life counseling that includes assisted suicide as an option (under another name, like “death with dignity”).

Statement by Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest:

“Just as Americans United for Life had expected, the new House health care bill unveiled this morning includes the Capps Amendment language added during the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up.  This bill will explicitly allow federal funding of abortion through the public option and permits federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that cover abortion.  The bill also ensures that at least one health insurance plan must cover abortion in every area of the country.” 

Dr. Yoest continued, “These provisions create a dramatic change from the status quo — currently no federal dollars are used to pay for elective abortions or plans that cover abortion.  Now, more than ever, pro-life members of Congress must demand the opportunity to vote on the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to prohibit abortion funding.  Explicit language must be added to this health care bill to prevent unprecedented federal funding of abortion.”

About Americans United for Life

The first national pro-life organization in America, Americans United for Life has been involved in every life-related case before the Supreme Court beginning with Roe v. Wade. Americans United for Life is the organization that successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980. Americans United for Life’s legislative arm, AUL Action recently met with the White House and has been meeting with Members of Congress about our concerns regarding abortion in health care.

Today, at the same time that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was unveiling the new House health care reform bill, Americans United for Life’s legislative arm AUL Action sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives to express our deep concern over the life-related provisions in the bill.  Just as we expected, the “new” bill does not make the changes necessary to ensure that abortion coverage and funding is excluded from health care reform.

In our letter, we told Members of the House that if the Stupak-Pitts amendment to remove abortion funding is not given a vote under the Rule governing Floor debate on the House bill, AUL Action will oppose the Rule and record the roll call vote on the Rule in our annual scorecard.  Furthermore, if the final language of the bill does not adequately meet any of AUL Action’s concerns expressed in our letter, AUL Action will oppose final passage of the bill and will record the roll call vote on final passage in our annual scorecard as well.

Today, House Democrats are expected to unveil a health care overhaul bill that will likely include new federal funding for abortions not covered by the Hyde Amendment, a funding restriction on abortion limited to programs funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill. Leading pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) indicated this week that he and 40 like-minded, pro-life Democrats will work with Republicans to “torpedo healthcare reform” unless he gets a vote on his amendment to explicitly exclude abortion funding from health care reform.

Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “Health care reform, including any public option, must include explicit language prohibiting abortion coverage and funding otherwise American tax payers will be forced to pay for abortions with their tax dollars. This move by Congress would be at odds with 71% of Americans who oppose taxpayer-funded abortions. The Capps Amendment, added to the House health overhaul bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up, explicitly allows abortion coverage and funding.”

Mary Harned, AUL’s Staff Counsel said, “If the House Democratic Leadership does not allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to prohibit abortion funding, pro-life Members of Congress may vote against the rule and the bill itself. Despite claims by Speaker Pelosi, abortion funding will become a reality in health care reform unless language is included in the Bill that explicitly excludes abortion funding and coverage.”

Speaker Pelosi claimed last month that the health care bill “does not expand any funding for abortion.” However, the Capps Amendment permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to include abortion as a mandatory minimum benefit in the new public health care plan, and allows private insurance plans that cover abortion to receive government subsidies. The provision also requires that all areas of the country contain one private plan that covers abortion.

Americans United for Life successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980. Their legislative arm, AUL Action met with the White House last month regarding abortion in health care reform. For more legal analysis and to view AUL Action’s video ad about abortion in health care reform, please visit: RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com.

In September, President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress and said “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.” Currently, however, all three health care reform proposals in Congress mandate abortion funding to varying degrees.  Recognizing this, President Obama now seeks to clarify that by “our plan” he did not mean the actual proposals in Congress, but his “own” plan.

But the context of President Obama’s statement does not support that understanding.  

It was not an off-the-cuff remark.  The statement came in a carefully planned speech to a joint session of Congress.  It was made before the House and the Senate that had already produced two of their three versions of health care reform legislation – both already including language about abortion funding.  The President and his staff chose the words he used and their placement in his speech.  

The President could have said “my plan” or “the plan I want you to create” or even “the only plan I will sign onto” will not fund abortion.  But he did not.  President Obama chose to say “our plan.” 

Furthermore, the assertion came in a segment of the speech dedicated to “clearing up misunderstandings.”  A rational understanding of this section of his address would be that it was the President’s reaction to statements made about the bills that existed at the time: H.R. 3200 and the Senate HELP bill.  Both bills that require federal funding of abortion.

If President Obama sought instead to announce that he personally no longer supports funding abortion – a departure from his own campaign promises- he could have, and should have, made that crystal clear in his address. 

Several other statements by the President and his aides support the conclusion that what he meant was the proposed bills in Congress would not fund abortion, that the Hyde Amendment barred such funding.  The Hyde Amendment, however, does not apply to health care reform. 

Perhaps the President was initially confused on this point.  But the White House inexplicably continues to repeat the proven false claim that federal law already precludes health care reform legislation from funding abortion.  There is no excuse for these misleading statements now.

If President Obama really does not want Congress and the American public to “misunderstand” the issue of abortion funding and actually ensure that “his plan” will not fund abortion – he must do two things: 1. He and his aides must stop making false claims that abortion funding is somehow already prohibited and 2. He must tell Congress that he will not sign any legislation without explicit language prohibiting abortion funding.

Otherwise, under whatever he meant by “our plan,” federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.

In August, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted sex-selection abortions as an abuse against women in India and China saying, “unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy.”

But sex-selection abortions are not a phenomenon foreign to the United States.

Oklahoma has taken an important step towards ending this abuse against women.  With overwhelming bipartisan support the Oklahoma legislature passed a law banning sex-selection abortions that was signed by self-described “pro-choice” Governor Brad Henry in May.

The law contains an anonymous reporting provision to ensure abortion providers are in compliance. This provision has an added benefit for women – collecting accurate data on the reasons women are seeking abortions will enable Oklahoma to offer programs with the assistance women actually want and “reduce the need for abortion.”

The legislation seems to be exactly the kind of “common ground” we have been asked to seek.  It aims to end gender discrimination at the earliest stage of life and will help develop meaningful alternatives to abortion for women.

However, the Center for Reproductive Rights has already launched an attack and obtained a temporary injunction against the law last week.  They claim the law has “nothing to do with protecting the people of Oklahoma and everything to do with lawmakers who have political agendas trying to make it harder for women to get abortions and harder for doctors to provide them.”

The bipartisan support for the law, even from “pro-choice” lawmakers, disagrees with them.

By attacking this legislation the Center for Reproductive Rights proves they are out of the mainstream.  They are not pro-women.   They are only pro-abortion.

Senate Majority Leader Reid announced that he will include a “public option” (government-run insurance plan) in the final Senate health care reform bill.  While the language of the final Senate bill, like the final House bill, is not available for public consumption, it is not hard to predict what the inclusion of a “public option” means for abortion funding and coverage.

Reid’s bill is a conglomeration of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Bill, the Senate Finance Committee (Baucus) Bill, and whatever else the Democratic leadership wants.  While the HELP bill included a public option; the Baucus Bill did not, including a “co-op” instead.  The HELP bill did not state whether or not abortion coverage would be included in the public option; it left that decision to an administrative agency.  The Baucus bill specified that private plans could not be forced by an administrative agency to provide abortion coverage; however, it did not speak to a public option because it did not have one.  So, how do we know that the public option in Reid’s bill will include abortion coverage and funding?

Look across the Hill: The Capps Amendment, added to the House health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the public option.  The amendment also requires funding of such abortion coverage if the Hyde Amendment is ever eliminated from the Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) annual appropriations bill. 

 What does this have to do with the Senate? 

 The abortion provisions in the Baucus bill were carefully modeled after the House Capps Amendment – the only reason the public option provision is missing is because the Baucus bill lacked a public option.  Therefore, it is highly likely that Reid will borrow the Capps public option provision and apply it to the public option in his own bill.

Even if Reid does not borrow the Capps language for his public option provision, administrative agencies and the courts are certain to include abortion as a mandatory minimum benefit in the public option, as they have done with statutory language in the past (see The Vulnerable Hyde Amendment and Abortion Mandate Flow Chart). 

That is why health care reform, including any public option, must include explicit language prohibiting abortion coverage and funding.  However, amendments to add such language were defeated in both the HELP and the Finance Committees.

So while AUL does not support or oppose the public option itself, we have grave concerns about what the inclusion of a public option will mean for thousands of unborn children, and for the American taxpayer who does not want to pay for abortions.

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

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.

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

The AP reports:

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

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

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

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

Morrissey adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LifeNews reports:

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

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

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

[Printer-friendly PDF]

Introduction

Soon after taking office, President Obama made it a top priority to reverse a regulation that allows health care providers the right to refuse to perform services to which they object. The regulation, issued by executive order by the Bush Administration and finalized on December 19, 2008,[1] broadens the application of conscience protections initially offered under the Church Amendment, a 30-year-old law establishing protections for health care providers who object to providing abortions or other family planning services. The Bush regulation applied broadly to all workers in a health care setting and included the right to refuse to provide services, information, or advice to patients about subjects to which the provider has moral objections. The Obama Administration began the administrative process to reverse the Bush Administration’s regulation with a proposed rule change in the Federal Register March 10, 2009. However, despite his actions to rescind the regulatory conscience clause protection for health care providers, President Obama stated in his September 9, 2009 address to Congress on health care reform legislation that “federal conscience laws would remain in place.”

How Existing Conscience Protections Impact Health Care Reform

The Bush regulation was a compilation of three underlying amendments. First, the Church Amendments provide fairly comprehensive statutory (strongest) conscience protection; however, they apply only to programs that receive funding through the Public Health Service Act (and two other unrelated acts). None of the funding in the current health care reform bills goes through this funding stream, meaning that the Church amendments would NOT apply.

The Coats Amendments, like the Church Amendments, are statutory protections; however, they apply to graduate medical education funding and focus on restrictions on training health care providers to perform abortions. This is not directly on point with the provisions in the health care reform bills, and thus does not provide sufficient protection.

The protections offered by the Weldon Amendment are included in the Bush regulation. The Weldon Amendment is fairly comprehensive in its scope of protection for conscience rights; however, like the Hyde Amendment restriction on abortion funding, the Weldon Amendment is attached to the yearly Labor Health and Human Services (LHHS) appropriations bill, and thus it is NOT permanent law. Like Hyde, the Weldon Amendment’s protection could fail if Congress refuses to add it to the LHHS bill. Furthermore, the Weldon Amendment only applies to programs appropriated through LHHS Appropriations. There are many provisions in the health care reform bills that bypass the LHHS appropriations altogether and self-appropriate. This means that even if the Weldon Amendment remains, it would offer no protection on those provisions, such as the public plan. For more information, see Health Care Bills in Congress.

Therefore, a broad conscience clause, much like the Weldon Amendment, must be statutorily included in the final health care reform bill before Congress. Without it, the only comprehensive conscience protection that would apply to all of health care reform would be the current Bush regulation, which President Obama is in the process of rescinding.

Conscience Protection in the Healthcare Reform Proposals before Congress

There are presently four different conscience clauses in the health care reform proposals before Congress: two competing clauses were added to the health care reform bill in the House (H.R. 3200) during the Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up, the Capps Amendment and the Stupak/Pitts Amendment; the Kennedy conscience amendment was added during mark-up to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill; and the Senate Finance Committee (Baucus) bill includes language similar to the Capps Amendment.

1. H.R. 3200

H.R. 3200 currently contains two conscience clauses. Reps. Pitts, Stupak, and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) drafted a conscience clause which the Energy and Commerce Committee passed by voice vote, and Rep. Capps also included a conscience clause in the amendment she successfully offered on July 30.

The Stuapak-Pitts Amendment mirrors existing law, i.e., the clear protections for those who oppose abortion which are provided annually through the Weldon conscience amendment (that must be added to an appropriations bill annually). It prohibits federal, state, or local governments that receive funds under H.R. 3200 from subjecting any health care entity to discrimination “on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.”

By contrast, the Capps Amendment prohibits health insurance plans participating in the Exchange (not government entities) from discriminating “against any individual health care providers or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” In other words, this provision protects the right of conscience for abortion providers, and would therefore require pro-life insurance companies to contract, against their conscience, with abortion providers.

2. Senate HELP Committee Bill

The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) offered an amendment on July 13 to the HELP bill (amdt. 205) which would ensure that no health care provider or entity is excluded from contracting with an insurance plan participating in “the Gateway” (the HELP bill’s health care exchange framework) on the basis that the provider or entity refuses to perform abortions if performing abortions would be contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the individual or entity. This amendment was accepted. The scope of the Kennedy amendment is limited however. It does not cover providers who refuse to pay for or refer patients for abortion services. In addition, the amendment provides an exception for “cases of emergency,” which is undefined and can be stretched to fit almost any situation, effectively stripping providers of any protection the amendment may have offered them. Medical providers need true rights of conscience protection and an ability meaningfully to object to performing abortions.

Sen. Coburn offered an amendment (a codification of the Weldon conscience amendment that must be added to an appropriations bill annually) to ensure that health care providers are not forced to participate in abortions or discriminated against because they choose not to do abortions (amdt. 246). The Coburn amendment was defeated.

3. Senate Finance Committee Bill

The Senate Finance Bill includes a conscience provision that mirrors the Capps Amendment in H.R. 3200. Like the Capps Amendment, the Senate Finance Bill would also protect abortionists from discrimination, thereby forcing pro-life insurance companies to contract with the abortionists.

Senator Orrin Hatch offered an amendment (#C13) that would have mirrored the Weldon conscience amendment (that must be added to an appropriations bill annually). However, it was defeated 13-10, with Senator Snowe (R-ME) crossing party lines to vote against the amendment, and Senator Conrad (D-ND) crossing party lines to support the amendment.

Conclusion

Health care providers should be free to deliver care in ethical ways without fear of government reprisal. Any health care reform legislation should protect rights of conscience to the fullest extent possible, and members of Congress must hold President Obama to his word to preserve the current conscience protections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERE are the Facts

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

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

Our assertions in the ad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House Ways and Means Committee

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

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

House Education and Labor Committee

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

House Energy and Commerce Committee

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

Senate Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions

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

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

Senate Finance Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Dr. Yoest writes,

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

In today’s edition of Church Report, AUL Staff Counsel Anna Franzonello responds to a report by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute that blames certain countries’ restrictive abortion laws for a high rate of deaths and complications from clandestine abortion in those countries.

The report’s conclusions are “ideologically driven by the Guttmacher Institute’s abortion-promoting agenda,” Franzonello writes. “Their own research contradicts the conclusion.”

Abortion advocates have long argued that legal abortion is safe abortion. However, there is abundant evidence … to show permitting the procedure by law has not resulted in making abortion safe. Abortions in sanctioned clinics produce the same horror stories of seriously injured women, unsterile conditions, and brutal treatment that we were assured would end when abortion was legalized. [Read the full article on Church Report's Web site.]

Today, Americans United for Life’s legislative action arm, AUL Action is giving America a much-needed reality check with a new online ad that dispels the deceptive rhetoric in Washington and gives clear evidence how taxpayer dollars will go to funding abortions in health care reform.

Our new online video ad, “Don’t Be Fooled: Abortion is in Health Care Reform,” is a part of “Real Health Care Respects Life,” our initiative to mobilize pro-life opposition nationwide to abortion in health care reform.

The new ad “Don’t Be Fooled” is featured on the initiative’s Web site, RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com.

This ad cuts through the rhetoric of pro-abortion politicians and shows how American taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions against their conscience. The ad highlights current health care reform proposals which would allow abortion in health care reform:

• Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s bill requires the taxpayers to spend $6 billion establishing co-ops that could cover abortion. 
• The Baucus bill and the Capps Amendment to the House bill, H.R. 3200 route federal dollars to private health insurance plans that cover abortion and ensure that every area of the country will have at least one health insurance plan that covers abortion. 
• The Capps Amendment to H.R. 3200 will include abortion in the public option.

We continue to hear deceptive arguments that the Hyde Amendment prevents abortion funding and coverage in health care reform, but as the organization who successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980, we assure you that Hyde does not apply to the current health care reform proposals.

My first column for the Knights of Columbus Web site HeadlineBistro.com, published today, tells the story of Ashli Foshee McCall, who emerged from personal tragedy to help others avoid making the mistake she made.

In 1996, Ashli Foshee McCall, 25 years old, married and pregnant with her first child, was diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), an extreme form of morning sickness.

According to the Hyperemesis Education & Research Foundation, an estimated 39,000 HG sufferers are hospitalized each year (many more suffer without hospitalization), and at least 10 percent of pregnancies complicated by HG end in abortion.

For McCall, after months of terrible suffering that had her crying out in agony and even hallucinating from the effects of electrolyte imbalance, she took her doctor’s advice and did the only thing she thought she could do to save her own life: She aborted her child in the second trimester.

Only afterwards, when she was well enough to do in-depth research – not easy in those days before most medical studies were on the Internet – did McCall find out the truth: With the right treatment, women can get relief from the sufferings of HG and give birth to healthy children.

McCall continued researching the disease for ten years, during which time she underwent three more pregnancies – one miscarriage, two live births – all with HG. (Women who have the illness during one pregnancy commonly suffer it during subsequent ones as well.) The result is her self-published book “Beyond Morning Sickness,” the first-ever patient’s guide to HG, and its companion Web site BeyondMorningSickness.com.

Thanks in part to exposure on Paula Zahn’s CNN show – on which McCall told why her abortion was the “biggest mistake” of her life – “Beyond Morning Sickness” has brought hope into the lives of women who were racked by grave illness and fear. [Read the entire column on HeadlineBistro.com.]

McCall’s story of being advised by her doctor to abort, under the mistaken belief that there was no other way for her and her baby to survive HG, is sadly not unique. Women who suffer from HG are often under pressure from their doctor, insurance company or even well-meaning family and friends to “do something” about it, ending their unborn children’s lives.

Americans United for Life works to end such coercion. One of the model bills we make available to state legislatures is our “Coercive Abuse Against Mothers Prevention Act,” which, in the language of the bill, “seeks to make it illegal to coerce or otherwise force a woman or minor into aborting her unborn child and intends to empower all mothers in the State … to exercise their freedom of conscience in choosing life for their pre-born children free of violent and abusive coercion.” The bill is included in the soon-to-be published 2010 edition of our legal handbook Defending Life.

Washington D.C. — Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, made the following statement Tuesday regarding the Finance Committee vote on health care reform:

“The Senate Finance Committee has joined the four other committees with jurisdiction over health care reform in reporting out a bill that does not include explicit language excluding abortion funding and coverage. In fact, the Baucus bill explicitly includes abortion funding and coverage.”

Dr. Yoest continued, “History has shown that unless legislation relating to health care reform includes language that expressly excludes abortion, courts and administrative agencies will interpret the legislation as including abortion. We urge the Democratic leadership in the Senate to ensure that the final Senate bill includes such language before the bill is brought to the Senate Floor.”

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

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

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

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

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

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