The video below is a news story from Friday night (2/5/10) aired on Special Report on Fox News Channel. Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of AUL, is interviewed in the story, which was on the military requiring health care facilities to stock the morning-after pill. More information on this topic can be found here.

[Editor's Note: Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of AUL, will be on Special Report with Bret Baier tonight (2/5/10) to discuss this topic. Click here for the live video. Dr. Yoest will likely be on from 6:15 to 6:20.]

Pro-Abortion Forces Declare War
Abortion Supporters Push Radical Agenda at Expense of U.S. Military

Not content simply to be at odds with increasingly pro-life public sentiments, abortion supporters have declared war on the U.S. military. Today, Pentagon officials announced that they were reversing a long-standing policy allowing individual military treatment facilities (MTFs) to determine whether or not they will carry so-called “emergency contraception.” Under a new Department of Defense (DOD) directive, MTFs will now be required to stock the dangerous and controversial drug.

Sadly, this appears to represent the achievement of one of the abortion lobby’s top tactical objectives against the U.S. military. For years, pro-abortion activists have sought to require that all MTFs – both in the U.S. and overseas – provide “emergency contraception” and elective abortions – abortions paid for at taxpayer expense as is all military medical care. To achieve these objectives, they must circumvent not only opposition among many military health care providers, but also existing DOD protections for health care rights of conscience.

Pursuant to DOD and individual service directives, military health care providers may refuse to participate, directly or indirectly, in medical procedures that they find morally or religiously objectionable. As with other rights of religious accommodation, this right will be balanced against military necessity and the potential adverse affect on unit readiness, individual readiness, unit cohesion, morale, discipline, safety, or health. Any refusals to provide medical care based on religious objections must be disclosed in advance to the provider’s chain of command and to patients as the need arises.

However, requiring MTFs to stock “emergency contraception” and individual providers to dispense it will eviscerate these protections. It is important to remember that military members including health care providers will not be able to walk away from their duties because they object to “emergency contraception.” They cannot simply find another job. They are bound by service contracts – contracts that typically obligate them to military service for a minimum of 3 years and more commonly 4 to 8 years or more – and, more importantly, they are bound by their sense of duty and obligation to their nation and to their fellow service members. Many of them are serving or have served with distinction in combat zones in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

However, forced to violate their consciences, many military providers will leave the military when their service contracts expire, endangering quality of care and military readiness. Pro-abortion supporters have to understand the difficult position that they are putting our service members in, but they do not care. Their radical agenda preempts everything including military readiness and national security.

Once they get the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent” by requiring the provision of “emergency contraception” regardless of individual providers’ objections, there is a clear path toward requiring that elective abortions be performed in military hospitals, by military doctors, and at U.S. taxpayer expense.

However, the battle has not necessarily been won. It is important to remember that, in April 2002, DOD issued a similar directive requiring that “emergency contraception” be carried at all MTFs and military pharmacies. However, this mandate was quickly rescinded a month later. As in 2002, pro-life Americans must voice their objections to this latest attempt to force military hospitals and health care providers to dispense “emergency contraception” and it too can be hastily withdrawn.

For more information on “emergency contraception”:
http://dl.aul.org/abortion/the-deadly-convenience-of-ru-486-and-plan-b

For more information on military healthcare rights of conscience:
http://dl.aul.org/rights-of-conscience/federal-rights-of-conscience-protections-holding-the-line-against-mounting-attacks

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.”

FEBRUARY 4, 2010

AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE DEFENDS ARIZONA’S INFORMED CONSENT LAW
AUL Files Brief in 9th Circuit Affirming State’s Interest in Protecting Women

WASHINGTON, DC – Attorneys with Americans United for Life filed a brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that Arizona’s 2009 informed consent law is a constitutionally-appropriate expression of the state’s legitimate interest in safeguarding the health of women considering abortions.

“Abortion providers in Arizona are making it clear that they aren’t protecting women’s health,” noted AUL’s lead attorney Mailee Smith, “rather their priority is getting paid.”

In 2009, Arizona enacted a law mandating that a woman considering abortion must receive information about its risks and also about the alternatives. The law also requires a 24-hour reflection period before the woman may actually undergo an abortion, and it prohibits abortion providers from collecting payment prior to the expiration of the reflection period.

In September 2009, Arizona abortion providers filed legal challenges to the law in both federal and state courts, requesting that it be enjoined and declared unconstitutional. A federal district court later refused to enjoin the law and abortion providers have elected to appeal the enforcement of the payment restrictions to the 9th Circuit.

State Representative Nancy Barto, AUL’s client and a principal sponsor of the legislation, remarked during a February 2009 hearing on the measure, that the State of Arizona has demonstrated a commitment to “protecting Arizonans’ right to make informed decisions about their medical care.”

Amicus Brief: http://blog.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/AUL-Tucson-v.-AZ-Amicus-Brief.pdf

http://aul.org/Amicus_Briefs
SOURCE: AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE: The first national pro-life organization in America

Media Contact
press@aul.org

202-556-1994

###

Meghan Duke blogs at On the Square about her experience Saturday at the National Gallery of Art in Washington:

After searching my bag, the two guards at the Gallery told me, “You’re good to go in, but first you need to remove that pro-life pin.” He was indicating the small lime green pin with the message “impact73.org” and the silhouette of a small hand inside that of a larger hand that I had attached to the lapel of my coat. The pin, they informed me, was a “religious symbol” and a symbol of a particular political cause and it could not be worn inside a federal building. Why, I asked, can I not wear a religious or political symbol inside a federal building? Bringing to bear the full weight of the supreme law of the land, the guards informed that it was a violation of the First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution: The combination of me, wearing a pro-life pin, in a federal building was a violation of the separation of church and state.

Duke goes on to say that the guards told her she couldn’t see the rule that dictated this policy and that no such policy was on the website. The guards also told her that if she were wearing a cross around her neck she would not have to remove it because “that’s entirely different.”

After following up with museum officials later, Duke learned that the guards were acting totally on their own initiative and that they were being disciplined over the matter.

Update and correction: Based upon a misreading of the line on the On The Square blog post about the federal laws for rules at the Smithsonian and other museums, I previously said that the National Gallery of Art was part of the Smithsonian. That is incorrect. I apologize for the error.

AUL Action has a special site covering today’s March for Life at VirtualMarchforLife.com. We will have updates there throughout the day.

While there, you can watch a live webcast courtesy of EWTN. You can also see Twitter and text message (SMS) updates. To have your updates show up, use the Twitter hashtag of #march4life or text @wif15150 and your message to 87884. You can also follow our live-blogging coverage of the March for Life.

Follow @aulaction on Twitter for updates during the day as well.mar

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are expected to attend tomorrow’s National March for Life, which takes place annually on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Americans United for Life Action, in an effort to bolster the real March for Life, launched the first-ever Virtual March for Life www.virtualmarchforlife.com earlier this week. This innovative online campaign allows people to create an avatar of themselves and “march” online. The Virtual March for Life currently boasts 45,000 Americans and is growing by the minute. As part of this effort, the Virtual March for Life is featuring prominent leaders who are lending their support to the cause.

“The healthcare bill as currently written will unravel long-standing federal policy by allowing public funds to be used for abortion. Because of the magnitude of this threat, this year’s national March for Life will be the most important in history. We created the Virtual March for Life to encourage people to be here tomorrow and to give voice to countless Americans who can’t be in Washington but wish they could. We are encouraging everyone to click and be heard,” said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life Action.

This list now includes:
• Governor Sarah Palin
• Governor Mike Huckabee
• Gov. Rick Perry
• Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family
• Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
• Sen. Jim DeMint
• Sen. John McCain
• Rep. John Boehner
• Rep. Mike Pence
• Rep. Eric Cantor
• Rep. Tom Price
• Marco Rubio, U.S. Senate candidate in Florida

Virtual March for Life is a project of AUL Action. AUL Action is the legislative arm of Americans United for Life, the first national pro-life organization in America.

• Visit Virtual March for Life’s website.
• Check out AUL Action’s video about the Virtual March for Life.
• Follow the Virtual March for Life on Twitter. Marchers can live-tweet using the hashtag #March4Life.
• Go to Virtual March for Life’s Facebook fan page.
About AUL Action

If you haven’t yet joined, surf on over to www.VirtualMarchForLife.com and set up your avatar right now.  Then tweet, post on Facebook, and email your friends for the largest pro-life online event ever!

For more information, check our legislative arm AUL Action’s blog by clicking here.

And maybe closer than you think

In a stunning reversal of fortunes, Senator Ben Nelson’s popularity is in a nosedive at home in Nebraska after he threw away his pro-life credentials for a few Medicaid dollars.

After standing firm for weeks insisting that there be no expansion of abortion through the government health care bill, Nelson abandoned that pledge once he secured millions in payments to Nebraska’s Medicaid program.  In response to the deal’s details becoming public, Senator Coburn stated in a press release that voters “will hold accountable anyone who defends sacrificing the unborn on the altar of political expediency.”

Well, Senator Coburn looks like a prophet in Nebraska.  According to a December 28 Rassmussen poll, if the election were held today between Democratic Senator Nelson and Republican Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman, Nelson would lose by a shocking 31 points.  By contrast, Nelson won his last election in 2006 with 64% of the vote.

And health care reform is the overriding reason for Nelson’s stark decline.  65% of Nebraskans say they oppose any health care reform that provides coverage for abortion while only 6% support mandated abortion coverage.  What would happen if he switched his vote?  Rasmussen asked and found that 20% of those voters backing Heineman would immediately come his way.

And if that wasn’t enough, Nelson’s special deal for free Medicaid money has only 17% support back home.  So much for buying votes.

While some are predicting health care passage later this month, these poll numbers offer a sobering reality check to which both Senators and Representatives should pay close heed.

In today’s Washington Times, Americans United for Life President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest penned an op-ed with other pro-life leaders Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List, Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life and David Bereit of 40 Days for Life outlining the abortion lobby’s stealth push to win big financially from abortion dollars in health care reform: 

“Planned Parenthood’s cover has been blown. Before the vote on Stupak-Pitts, there were no uproars from the abortion lobby about government funding of abortion in the healthcare bill. There were no send-your-legislator-a-hanger campaigns. Why? Because they were hoping this issue would slip under the radar and that the bill would pass without any specific exclusion of abortion, which would ensure that abortion would certainly be funded by the government.

But pro-life groups like ours were making noise and demanding abortion funding be taken out of healthcare legislation. And we will continue to do so as the House and Senate bills have to be reconciled.”

Read the full story on the Washington Times‘ Web site.

LEARN MORE: For in-depth background on the health care abortion tax and our legislative arm AUL Action’s open letter to Planned Parenthood, please visit our blog.

“Americans don’t want taxpayer funding for abortions and are opposed to a first-ever, mandatory abortion tax. Knowing this, the bill’s proponents have rushed it through the Senate at a time when Americans are focused on celebrating Christmas with their families.”

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

For more information:

http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/20/the-abortion-tax-and-other-problems-in-senator-reid%E2%80%99s-amendment/

http://blog.aul.org/2009/12/19/legal-analysis-of-life-concerns-in-managers-amendment/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2009

Washington, D.C. – Today, Americans United for Life (AUL) filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, detailing the links between abortion and the increased risk of depression and suicide.  The brief seeks to overturn a lower court’s decision that abortion providers in South Dakota are not required to inform women of these risks.

“Abortion is not a safe choice for women,” noted Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of AUL, “and the mounting evidence of its negative physical and psychological impact cannot be ignored. We have a legal and moral responsibility to inform them about the well-documented, increased risks of depression and suicide associated with abortion.”

In June 2005, Planned Parenthood filed suit against a newly-enacted South Dakota law requiring abortion providers to inform women that abortion increases the risk of suicide, that women have an existing relationship with an unborn child, and that abortion terminates “the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”  Later, in August 2009, a federal district court invalidated the first two requirements, but permitted the requirement that women be told that abortion ends a human life to be enforced.

AUL Attorney Mailee Smith explained, “In challenging this law, Planned Parenthood has demonstrated – yet again – that it is not a defender of women’s health.  If this were the case, Planned Parenthood would fight for laws that protect women rather than advocating for laws that attempt to hide risks from them.”

On the brief, AUL is representing several well-respected medical groups:  the Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA), the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), the Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, and the National Association of Pro-life Nurses. 

AUL’s brief in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds is available at http://blog.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/PP-v-Rounds-AUL-amicus-brief.pdf.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 21, 2009

Washington, D.C. – Today, Americans United for Life (AUL) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to hear a challenge to, and ultimately strike down, a 2007 Massachusetts law criminalizing the peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights outside abortion clinics.

“This law is an affront to the basic, fundamental right to free speech,” said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, “and we are simply asking the Supreme Court to uphold the First Amendment.”

The 2007 law establishes a 35 foot “no-enter zone,” also known as a bubble zone, around state abortion clinics.  Citizens who advise against abortion within this zone can be arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights. Under the law, anyone who, at the request of a woman entering an abortion clinic, approaches her to talk is subject to immediate arrest. Incredibly, an abortion clinic employee or “escort” may enter the “zone” and convince the woman to proceed into the clinic and undergo an abortion.

“This law is breathtaking in its utter disregard for the constitutional rights of American citizens,” noted Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs, William Saunders,“The scope of prohibited conduct is staggering.  Praying, wearing a pro-life t-shirt, displaying a pro-life sign, handing out written information about the negative impact of abortion on women, or simply talking to other Americans who are concerned about abortion are all essentially outlawed practices outside of a Massachusetts abortion clinic.”

AUL is representing 40 Days for Life, a successful community-based campaign that draws attention to abortion through prayer, fasting, peaceful vigils outside abortion clinics, and other forms of community outreach.  The most recent 40 Days for Life campaign was conducted in 212 communities across the United States with more than 85,000 participants nationwide.

AUL’s brief in McCullen v. Coakley is available at http://blog.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/McCullen-v.-Coakley-AUL-amicus-brief.pdf

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

December 24, 2009 Update

Majority Leader Reid’s Manager’s Amendment is part of the Senate health care reform bill that passed the Senate on December 24,2009 by a vote of 60-39.

December 20, 2009

 Apologists for Majority Leader Reid’s amendment to his health care reform bill will argue that it allows individuals to choose whether they purchase an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage or not.  Such apologists are likely to also argue that no individual will be forced to pay for anyone else’s abortion.  However, the reality is much different. 

First, let us be clear, Majority Leader Reid’s amendment does not change the fact that the government will subsidize insurance plans that cover elective abortions.  In departure from longstanding federal policy, section 1303(b)(1)(A) allows a “qualified health plan” – one that participates in an Exchange and is available to individuals who receive tax credits to cover part of their insurance premiums – to include abortion coverage.  Therefore, insurance plans that cover elective abortions will receive these federal subsidies.

Second, while it is true that the amendment provides that federally funded subsidies cannot directly pay for those abortions that currently cannot be paid for by federal funds under the Hyde amendment (all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother), that separation will be rendered meaningless if the Hyde amendment, which must be added to an appropriations bill every year, is ever eliminated.  Section 1303(b)(2)(A).  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.  If they succeed in getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, these new federal subsidies will directly pay for any and all abortions. 

Finally, there is an additional limitation on choice in Majority Leader Reid’s amendment that has been largely ignored, and for the first time in U.S. history imposes an abortion tax on unwilling Americans.  Under Majority Leader Reid’s amendment, ALL individuals who participate in plans in the Exchange that include elective abortion coverage, even if they do so unwittingly, will directly pay part of their own premiums into an account that pays for nothing but elective abortions.  The amendment provides that each and every enrollee in such a plan (or their employer on their behalf) must write a separate check for elective abortion coverage, even if that enrollee never intends to have an abortion.  That amount cannot be less than $12.00 per year.  Sections 1303(b)(2)(B)-(D).  In an apparent attempt to hide this abortion tax, the language prohibits insurance plans from emphasizing this requirement to prospective enrollees.  Section 1303(b)(3)(B).

Again, apologists for this amendment will reply that individuals who do not want to pay for abortion coverage can choose an insurance plan that does not include it.  However, it is not that simple.  If John Doe works for XYZ, a small business, and XYZ decides to enroll John and the rest of its employees in an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage in an exchange, John and his coworkers will be forced to pay this abortion tax.  Furthermore, under the Mikulski Amendment which is already added to the Health Care Reform Bill, an administrative agency may determine that abortion is “preventive care” and then require all insurance companies to cover abortion.  If that happens, there will truly be no opportunities for pro-life Americans to avoid paying for others’ abortions.

December 24, 2009 Update

Majority Leader Reid’s Manager’s Amendment is part of the Senate health care reform bill that passed the Senate on December 24,2009 by a vote of 60-39.

December 19, 2009

“Majority Leader Reid’s amendment to the Senate health care bill absolutely fails to meet abortion and life protections that exist in current federal law and policy.  It does not prevent federal funding of plans that include abortion coverage, it does not adequately protect health care providers who choose to exercise their rights of conscience, and it does not prevent government involvement in assisted suicide. A vast majority of the American people are opposed to these policies and will make themselves heard loudly over the coming days.” – Charmaine Yoest

AUL’s Legal Analysis of Life Concerns in Manager’s Amendment:

From a preliminary analysis of Majority Leader Reid’s manager’s amendment, it is clear that it is unacceptable and would be a radical departure from existing law and policy.

First, the amendment provides inadequate conscience protection, because it does not prohibit any government entity or program (federal, state, or local) from discriminating against health care providers that do not want to participate in abortions.

Second, the amendment fails to address our concerns that under the Mikulski amendment (already accepted in the underlying bill), the Health Resources and services Administration (HRSA) has the power to require private insurance plans to include abortion coverage under the guise of “preventive care.”

Third, the amendment allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive government subsidies, which is a radical departure from existing law (which is not allowed under the Hyde Amendment and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program).

Fourth, while the amendment allows states to “opt out” of allowing private plans that include abortion coverage to participate in their exchanges, this “opt out” provision makes abortion coverage normative.  In other words, states will have to act to prevent subsidies from going to plans that cover abortions in their state, turning on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion.

Fifth, the amendment fails to ensure federal funds will not go to assisted suicide and fails to address concerns that Comparative Effectiveness Research will lead to rationing of essential medical care.

I.  Abortion

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care bill includes pro-abortion language that mirrors the Capps Amendment from the original House health care bill.  The bill:

• Allows the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions through the community health insurance (public) option (as long as an accounting mechanism ensures that federal funds do not directly pay for abortions) (Section 1303(a)(1)(C));
• Allows states to require the coverage of all abortions in a community health insurance option in the state (as long as an accounting mechanism ensures that federal funds do not directly pay for abortions) (Section 1303(a)(1)(C)(2));
• Requires that a plan that covers abortion be available in every insurance market (Section 1303(a)(1)(D)(i)(I), (ii)(II));
• Creates new federal subsidies for private insurance plans that include abortion coverage (Section 1303(a)(2)).

As with the Capps amendment, the Senate bill purports to segregate federal funds from the portion of the premiums that individuals pay towards their health insurance.  Only the portion that individuals directly pay may go towards abortion.  However, this does not change the fact that the bill allows the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that include abortion coverage and that the public option will ultimately cover elective abortions.

The Senate bill also states that funds provided for school-based clinics cannot be used for abortions (Sec. 399Z-1(f)(1)(b)) and that school-based clinics are defined as not providing abortions (Sec. 399Z-1(a)(3)(C)).  However, these provisions do not prohibit abortion referrals.

On December 3, 2009, the Senate passed the Mikulski amendment.  The Mikulski amendment, in pertinent part, requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance to provide coverage for and not impose cost sharing requirements on “preventive care” for women “as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).”

While this amendment does not explicitly require abortion coverage, it also fails to explicitly exclude it.  The HRSA could categorize abortion as “preventive care,” and would therefore recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans.  The recommendation would force private plans to offer abortion coverage, furthering the abortion lobby’s agenda of mainstreaming abortion as health care.

On December 8, 2009, the Senate voted to table the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment that would have stricken the Capps language from the Senate bill and added language mirroring the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House.  For more information on the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, please see the Summary of the Nelson-Hatch-Casey Amendment.

II.  Conscience

The Senate bill provides: 

“No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” (Section 1303(a)(3)).

While H.R. 3962 includes conscience protection that 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), the Senate language is insufficient.  Under section 1303(a)(3), insurance plans cannot refuse to contract with abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, on the basis that they provide abortions.

The Senate bill also provides that there will be no preemption of federal laws on conscience, willingness or refusal to provide abortions, or discrimination on the basis of willingness or refusal to provide abortions (Section 1303(b)(2)).  However, it fails to explicitly protect state laws on the right of conscience. 

III. Rationing of Care

The Senate health care reform bill contains several provisions that relate directly to comparative effectiveness research (CER).

Provisions in Bill

Section 6301 of the Reid bill establishes the “Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute” (the Institute) to evaluate the risks and benefits of two or more medical treatments, services or items. The Institute will be a private, nonprofit corporation (unlike under the House bill in which the CER entity is housed in the Department of Health and Human Services). The Reid bill authorizes and appropriates funds to a Trust Fund for the Institute. The Institute has the authority to contract out for research, but the Reid bill specifies that contract priority should be awarded to the federal government.

The Institute presents serious concerns that the federal government could misuse results of CER to deny or ration care.

The Reid bill specifies that research conducted by the Institute should be designed to take into account “the potential for differences in the effectiveness of health care treatments, services, and items as used with various subpopulations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, women, age, and groups of individuals with different comorbidities, genetic and molecular sub-types, or quality of life preferences and include members of such subpopulations as subjects in the research.”

In 8(A)(iv) of the section governing the CER Institute, the bill specifies that “The Institute shall ensure that the research findings not be construed as mandates for practice guidelines, coverage recommendations, payment, or policy recommendations.” However, rather than a prohibition against misuse of CER data, this provision merely instructs the Institute to ensure that its findings will not be construed in a certain manner.

Later in the section in part (j), the bill states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Institute to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.”  However, again, this prohibition simply prohibits the Institute from using CER data in a certain manner and does not actually prevent the misuse of CER data by other agents of the federal government.

Once again, in the CER section, the bill states that all “materials, forums and media used to disseminate” CER findings should “not be construed as mandates, guidelines, or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment.” This statement however does not prohibit the use of CER findings in determining payment or coverage decisions.

          In addition to the above, (insufficient) limitations, the bill adds a separate section called “Limitations on Certain Uses of Comparative Effectiveness Research.” Under this section, the Secretary of HHS may not deny coverage solely on the basis of comparative clinical effectiveness research. However, this would not prohibit a federal government agency from using the results of CER in conjunction with other factors, such as cost effectiveness, to deny and ration care.

The section further prohibits the Secretary from using the “evidence or findings from CER in determining coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs in a manner that treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, nondisabled, or not terminally ill.  It is important to note that this does not prohibit denial of care or use of CER to make reimbursement decisions as long as the decisions apply equally to all individuals.

On the other hand, the subsequent paragraph specifically allows the Secretary to use CER evidence and findings to help extend an individual’s life, when issues such as the individual’s age, disability, or terminal illness are present. In addition, the Secretary may not use the findings to “preclude”, or “discourage” an individual’s choice of health care treatment.

Finally, the bill specifies that the Institute “shall not develop or employ a dollars-per-quality adjusted life year (or similar measure that discounts the value of a life because of an individual’s disability) as a threshold to establish what type of health care is cost effective or recommended. The Secretary shall not utilize such an adjusted life year (or such a similar measure) as a threshold to determine coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs.”

Taken as a whole, AUL remains concerned that CER findings could be used to deny or ration health care, and will continue to closely monitor the issue.

CER Amendments

On Dec 1, 2009, Senator Mikulski (D-MD) offered an amendment which would expand the authority of the federal government to further impose health decisions on patients and doctors. The Mikulski amendment adds a broad category of care – women’s health – over which a government-run entity (this time the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)) could exercise authority. Under the Mikulski amendment, HRSA would have the authority to establish mandatory preventive care services for women which would become requirements for all private health plans. While having preventive health care for women is a great end, having a government bureaucracy rather than a patient’s own physician determine the path to preventive care is the wrong means.  On December 3, 2009, the amendment was added to the Senate bill by a vote of 61-39.

As an answer to the Mikulski amendment, Senator Murkowski (R-AK) offered her own amendment on Dec. 2, 2009. The Murkowski amendment would also ensure that women receive preventive health services, but authorizes physicians, rather than the government or an insurance company to determine which preventive services are appropriate. Further, the Murkowski amendment also addresses the larger concern of misuse of comparative effectiveness data. The amendment explicitly prohibits the government from using data obtained from the conduct of comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of an item or service under either private or government-run insurance.  On December 3, 2009, the Murkowski amendment was defeated by a vote of 41-59.

IV.  Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

The Senate bill includes a prohibition on discrimination against health care providers who do not want to participate in assisted suicide.  The bill provides that the federal government, any state or local government, any health care provider that receives federal dollars under this act, or any health plan created under this act:

“may not subject an individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.”

This is a positive provision.  However, its effect should not be overstated. The provision prohibits discrimination against health care providers on the basis that they refuse to conduct an activity that is illegal in all but two states.  In the vast majority of states it should be clear that such discrimination is prohibited, because the underlying activity is prohibited. 

Conscience protections for health care providers in states that have legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia are necessary, but they only partially address the end-of-life concerns in health care reform legislation.  Even where states have legalized assisted suicide or euthanasia, the practices are not health care and their funding and promotion should be explicitly prohibited in any federal health care legislation.  The Senate bill lacks that clear prohibition.

Section 1323 (F) raises another concern.  The provision prohibits a community health insurance option from “limiting access to end of life care.”  Protecting access to true care for those at the end-of-life is commendable.  However, the section does not define “end of life care.”   Without a prohibition on federal funding of assisted suicide and a clear definition of assisted suicide and euthanasia, this provision may be interpreted to require insurance to provide “access” to these practices in states that legally consider them “end of life care.” 

 “End of life care” must be defined to exclude assisted suicide and euthanasia.  Furthermore, assisted suicide should be clearly defined to avoid the same loophole that exists in the bill passed by the House (in Washington and Oregon a prohibition on funding or promoting “assisted suicide” is ineffective because both states’ laws define what they have legalized to be something other than assisted suicide).  The Senate bill needs to explicitly prohibit the promotion of, and use of federal dollars for, the practice of intentionally causing or assisting in causing death.

Pro-life leaders will convene an urgent meeting tonight to unveil a grassroots strategy for tens of thousands of pro-life activists across the nation as the Senate health care legislation reaches a critical phase. A live audiocast will be available beginning at 9 pm ET.

WHEN: Tuesday, December 15 @ 9 pm ET

WHERE: Americans United for Life’s Washington, DC headquarters

WHAT: Health Care Strategy Meeting…

•  Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life
• Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council
• Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America
• Marjorie Dannenfelser, President and Chairman of the Board of the Susan B. Anthony List
• Sen. Mike Johanns, U.S. Senator from Nebraska
• Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life
• Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director for National Right to Life Committee
• Abby Johnson, Former Planned Parenthood Director
• David Bereit, National Director, 40 Days for Life
• Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America

To listen to the audiocast, visit www.stoptheabortionmandate.com/audiocast

Seating is limited but if you are member of the press and would like to attend this special roundtable or schedule an interview with Dr. Charmaine Yoest, please contact Heather Smith or Matthew Faraci at 202-289-1478 or Heather.Smith@aul.org and Matthew.Faraci@aul.org.

“This appropriations bill guts a longstanding prohibition on using public funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia.  The bill also provides millions of dollars for international “family planning” that could be directed to organizations that pay for and promote abortions.  A majority of Americans do not support the use of their tax dollars to pay for abortions.”  – Charmaine Yoest

The U.S. House will vote today on H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010.  While in Fiscal Years 1996-2009, Congress prohibited the use of all Congressionally appropriated funds for abortions in the District of Columbia (except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother), H.R. 3288 only prohibits the use of “federal” funds for abortions in D.C. (Division C, Section 814).  This modification allows funds which are Congressionally appropriated for the D.C. budget to be used for elective abortions. 

Americans United for Life’s legislative arm AUL Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, “This appropriations bill guts a longstanding prohibition on using public funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia.  The bill also provides millions of dollars for international “family planning” that could be directed to organizations that pay for and promote abortions.  A majority of Americans do not support the use of their tax dollars to pay for abortions.” 

The bill also appropriates $648.5 million for international family planning funding, an increase of $103 million from Fiscal Year 2009, without the constraints of the Mexico City Policy to prevent these dollars from being provided to organizations that promote and perform abortions (Division F, Section 7060).  Finally, the bill increases funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has an admittedly pro-abortion agenda, to $55 million, a $5 million increase from FY09 (Division F, Section 7078).

This morning, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) heard arguments in the case ABC v. Ireland.  A consultant in the case, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs William Saunders reports from Strasbourg:

“As the government of Ireland emphasized in oral arguments before the Grand Chamber today, this case has not satisfied the prerequisites for review by the ECHR because the plaintiffs have only made vague unsupported statements and there is not a record for review. 

“For instance, plaintiffs alleged that they could not get meaningful review of their case in Ireland, but they made no effort to seek that review!   Plaintiffs also claim they came to the ECHR because they would not have been afforded relief in time by the Irish courts.  The simple fact is, however, by the time the case came to the ECHR, the pregnancy of each plaintiff had already ended, whether by natural means or by abortion.  Thus, the ECHR could not have possibly given more timely attention than the Irish courts.

“A string of assertions was made by the plaintiffs about “human rights law” and “European consensus” in favor of abortion – all of which was undocumented.  Even assuming, for the sake of argument, what they said was true, none of it was relevant to the interpretation of a human rights treaty agreed to 40 years ago.

“Plaintiffs’ argument reminded me of the saying we learned in law school ‘if you don’t have the law argue the facts.’  They endlessly recounted details of the three anonymous women’s lives in an attempt to invoke sympathy from the judges and distract from the law.

“The Irish government also pointed out that the best established principle of European jurisprudence is to leave matters like abortion for each independent nation to decide. 

“As predicted this case over the contentious issue of abortion drew protestors…Irish young people supporting the right to life!

“It is astonishing that with thousands of applications made to the Court that can only hear 48 cases per year, it would waste its time hearing a case with no evidentiary record and no lower court decision.

“The Court’s decision last month to prohibit the display of a crucifix in Italian classrooms has also generated a lot of protests.  Should the Court issue another activist opinion in this case it could lead to demise of the ECHR.  The question is, would that be a bad thing?”

“A vote to table the amendment is a vote against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. A majority of Senators effectively endorsed the abortion lobby’s goal of mainstreaming abortion as health care.”  

– Charmaine Yoest

 The U.S. Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, which would have maintained existing law by prohibiting both federal funding of abortion and government-mandated abortion coverage.  Without the explicit ban on abortion funding, Americans United for Life’s legislative arm AUL Action will now oppose the final health care bill.

Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, “A vote to table the amendment is a vote against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. A majority of Senators effectively endorsed the abortion lobby’s goal of mainstreaming abortion as health care.” 

The Senate health care reform bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the “community health insurance option,” and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage.  In addition, the bill also requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.

Dr. Yoest continued, “The Senate had the opportunity to follow the House’s lead in ensuring that federal dollars are not used to pay for abortions.  Instead, the Senate chose to reject the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment and continue down the road towards unprecedented federal funding of abortion.”

Four major anti-life concerns in this health care bill:

1) Unprecedented abortion funding: The Senate bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the “community health insurance option,” and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage.  In addition, the bill requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.

2) Rationing of care: The Senate health care reform bill contains provisions that could be used to deny or ration health care.

3) Lacks conscience protection: The Senate bill fails to prohibit government entities from discriminating against health care providers on the basis that they do not participate in abortions.  The bill also explicitly provides that insurance plans in the exchange cannot refuse to contract with abortion providers on the basis that they provide abortions. 

4) Abortion as “preventive care”: The Milkulski amendment added on the Senate floor could mandate abortion coverage under the guise of preventive care.  For the first time in history, the federal government could require private insurance companies to cover abortion.

To view AUL Action’s score letter on the vote for the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, click here.

To view AUL Action’s open letter to Planned Parenthood challenging them on their financial interests in health care reform, click here.

To view AUL Action’s newspaper ad of our open letter to Planned Parenthood, please click here or here.

Tomorrow, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is hearing arguments in ABC v. Ireland, a case challenging Ireland’s protection of unborn life.  Americans United for Life played an active role when Ireland, by popular referenda, guaranteed the right to life to the unborn members of its nation.  This week, as an advisor to the case, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs, William Saunders, is in Strasbourg for the arguments.

There is no merit to the plaintiffs challenge.  The European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), ECHR case law, and international norms all permit Ireland to protect the unborn as it does through its laws.  However, there are troubling signs that what should be an open and shut case for Ireland is about to become the “Roe v. Wade” of Europe.

Until 2007, under settled principles such as subsidiarity, member nations of the European Union had been able to address difficult issues surrounding abortion without interference by the ECHR.  The 2007 decision in the case of Tysiac v. Poland showed a willingness of the ECHR to abandon settled principles of jurisprudence towards creating “a right to abortion.” 

The Court’s decision to even entertain arguments at this time is a bad sign that such an abuse is about to happen.  Article 35 §1 of the Convention requires complete exhaustion of domestic remedies before the Court can even hear a case.  ABC v. Ireland should have already been dismissed on these procedural grounds alone.

While dismissal is warranted, it is an unlikely outcome given the highly unusual development in the process of the case.  Before the lower chamber reached a decision in ABC v. Ireland, the matter was referred to the Grand Chamber.  Bypassing the normal process, the Court may be preparing to issue what it considers an “historic” decision.

“This health care bill is an abortion business bailout.”  – Charmaine Yoest

On the day that a vote on the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment is expected, Americans United for Life’s legislative arm AUL Action published a full-page newspaper ad in one of the top Capitol Hill newspapers The Hill challenging Planned Parenthood to state how much they stand to gain from the passing of health care reform legislation.

Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Charmaine Yoest said, “This Senate health care bill is a bailout for the world’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. Their lobbying efforts are said to be about empowering women and advancing reproductive health but the bottom line is that Planned Parenthood needs the business.”

Dr. Yoest continued, “AUL Action is fighting to prevent the tragedy of a dramatic increase of abortions in America — funded by American tax dollars.”

Planned Parenthood is the world’s largest abortion provider and has an annual budget in excess of $1 billion and posted an $85 million profit last year.  Planned Parenthood also received $350 million in federal funding in 2007.  The newspaper ad notes a recent Harvard Business case study revealing that despite the “massive public subsidies, Planned Parenthood is struggling financially.”

To view the newspaper ad, please click here or here.

On Monday, Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Robert Casey (D-PA) offered an amendment to the Senate health care reform bill that would ensure that insurance plans are not forced by the government to cover abortions, and would prohibit federal funding for elective abortions and for insurance plans that cover elective abortions.  This amendment could receive a vote as early as today.

Even if the Senate passes the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, which adequately prohibits both federal funding of abortion and any mandates on insurance plans to provide abortion coverage, the Senate health care reform bill fails to provide sufficient protection for the right of conscience.  The Senate must add language mirroring Section 259 of H.R. 3962, which prohibits government entities from discriminating against health care providers on the basis that they do not participate in abortions.

Below is an analysis of the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment.  Please also see our analysis of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962 and our comparison of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the Hyde amendment.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment includes the same prohibitions on federal funding of elective abortions and insurance plans that cover elective abortions added to H.R. 3962 through the Stupak-Pitts amendment.  The Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, mirrors the principles on abortion coverage and funding found in existing federal law. 

The Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment strikes page 116, line 15 through page 123, line 15, removing the entire section that mirrors the pro-abortion Capps amendment from the House Energy and Commerce Committee mark-up. 

In place of the stricken language, the amendment does the following:

• Provides that nothing in this act or an amendment made by this act shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage for abortion or to allow the Secretary or “any other person or entity implementing this Act” to require such coverage.  This provision replaces language in the underlying bill that prohibits any “qualifying health plan” from being required to cover abortions as part of its “essential health benefits,” with language that protects all private health plans from being required to cover abortions. See Sec. (a)(1).
• Prohibits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services from providing coverage of abortion in the community health insurance option except where federal funding of abortion is allowed under section (b)(1) (in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother).  Similarly, the Stupak-Pitts amendment struck the provision in H.R. 3962 that allowed the Secretary to include elective abortion coverage in the public option, but allows federal funds to pay for abortions in the same cases where federal funding is permitted in section (b)(1) of this amendment (in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother).  See Sec. (a)(2); Stupak-Pitts Amdt. Page 1 and Sec. 265(a).
• Forbids any exchange-participating plan from discriminating against a provider because of unwillingness to participate in abortions.  This provision replaces language in the underlying bill which would have failed to protect private insurance companies who do not want to contract with abortion providers.  The same change was accomplished through a strike in the Stupak-Pitts amendment.  It is important to note, however, that the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment does not include the strong conscience protection found in H.R. 3962 and the Hyde-Weldon amendment added annually to the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill.  Even with the inclusion of this provision, the Senate bill lacks sufficient conscience protection.  See Sec. (a)(3); Stupak-Pitts Amdt. Page 3.
• Prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or to subsidize plans that cover abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.  This provision is effectively identical to both the Stupak-Pitts amendment and the Hyde amendment. See Sec. (b)(1); Stupak-Pitts Amdt. Sec. 265(a); Hyde Amdt. Sec. 507, 508 (1-2).
• Expressly provides that it does not prohibit a non-federal entity (such as a State) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions or a plan that covers such abortion as long as no funds authorized or appropriated by this act are used and such coverage or plan is not purchased using: (1) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange towards which an affordability credit is applied, or (2) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.  This provision is effectively identical to both the Stupak-Pitts amendment and the Hyde amendment.  See Sec. (b)(2); Stupak-Pitts Amdt. Sec. 265(b); Hyde Amdt. Sec. 508(b).
• Expressly provides that nothing prohibits a non-federal health insurance issuer which offers a qualified health plan in the exchange from offering separate supplemental elective abortion coverage or a plan that covers such abortions so long as premiums for such supplemental coverage or plan are paid entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this act, administrative costs and all services offered through it are paid strictly with such premiums, and the insurer that offers a plan with elective abortion coverage in the Exchange also offers an identical plan that does not include elective abortion coverage.  Again, this section effectively mirrors the Stupak-Pitts amendment and the Hyde amendment.  See Sec. (b)(3); Stupak-Pitts Amdt. Sec. 265(c); Hyde Amdt. Sec. 508(c).

World leaders convening in Copenhagen for a United Nations Convention on Climate Change are considering a proposed multilateral treaty that mandates lower greenhouse gas emissions and shared clean energy technology.  Few Americans who support these broad objectives know what the treaty actually says or what its impact might be. Even fewer recognize the unarticulated agenda of some treaty supporters to expand abortion and other pro-death practices under the guise of green-friendly international law. 

Some climate change activists, including backers of this treaty, view human beings themselves, not just human behaviors, as threats to the environment. The U.N. Population Fund’s 2009 Report states: “No human is genuinely carbon neutral, especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution.”

An increasing number of recent studies urge population control to combat climate change. As one report concludes, “A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with [their] day to day activities when assessing [their] ultimate impact on the global environment.” Another study finds the cost of contraception nearly five times cheaper than “conventional” green technologies.  Likewise, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide could be viewed as inexpensive “solutions” to climate change.

And with the scope of power this treaty grants its governing body, there will be no recourse to stop the spread of anti-life practices on an unprecedented global level. 

In the language of the current draft, “new levels of cooperation” among nations will be created to “broaden the legal commitments” to its provisions. One provision establishes a “new institutional arrangement under the Convention,” identified as a “government.”  This institution will possess unprecedented global powers to affect the domestic affairs of party nations. 

The proposed treaty threatens the sovereignty of the United States, our national economic well-being, and the protection of human life itself.

11/18/09 – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) unveiled the U.S. Senate’s health care reform bill. The bill includes pro-abortion language and mirrors the false compromise Capps Amendment from the House debate — it allows the public option to include abortion coverage and provides federal subsidies for private plans which cover abortion. 

• CNN (11/19/09): Americans United for Life president and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest’s warns that “the majority of Americans who oppose federal funding of abortion will not stand for policies that force them into paying for abortions under the guise of health care reform.”
• AUL’s legislative arm AUL Action sends note to pro-life activists in Nebraska to contact Sen. Nelson about the cloture vote. (11/19/09)
• AUL “finds that the Senate bill does not include the Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House bill, which would prohibit federal funding of abortion, except in the case of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life.” National Catholic Register (11/20/09)
• Dr. Yoest explains abortion in the Senate bill to the G. Gordon Liddy Show. (11/20/09)
• World magazine reports on Dr. Yoest’s assessment of the U.S. House health vote of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, “The fact that there really is a bipartisan consensus for life in the House, and that it reflects the views of mainstream America, has rocked the political establishment.” (11/20/09)

11/21/09 – U.S. Senate begins discussion of the pro-abortion provisions in Majority Leader Reid’s health care reform bill and votes 60-39 on cloture, a party-line vote, to begin debate on Majority Leader Reid’s anti-life health care reform bill.  Senate leaves for Thanksgiving break to return on Monday, November 30^th to begin the debate and amendment process on health bill.

• Sen. Orrin Hatch reads Americans United for Life’s legislative arm AUL Action’s score letter on the floor of the U.S. Senate. (click here for video)
• AUL tells Baptist Press that the vote on cloture was a “pro-abortion vote.”
• Life News: “The bill allows the HHS Secretary to require coverage of any and all abortions through the public option, creates new federally-funded subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion, and requires every insurance market to include a private plan that covers abortion, Dr. Yoest explained.” (11/21/09)

11/23/09 – Catholic News Agency reports on AUL’s description of “the Senate bill as providing for an ‘unprecedented’ expansion of federally funded abortion. [Dr. Yoest] charged that the legislation moves towards redefining abortion as health care, fails to protect the consciences of medical providers and fails to prohibit federal funding of assisted suicide.”

11/24/09 – AUL Staff Counsel Mary Harned tells Focus on the Family radio about the abortion provisions in the Senate bill, “There’s a provision to allow a public option to include abortion coverage,” she said. “There’s also a provision that allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage, and there’s a provision that ensures there’s at least one private plan in every coverage area that includes abortion.”

11/25/09 – Abortion lobby and pro-life groups continue debate over what is the “status quo” of abortion in health care reform.  Canada’s Life and Family newspaper The Interim refers to Dr. Yoest’s Wall Street Journal op-ed discussing settled law on abortion, “the only honest way to maintain the status quo” in which no taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortions, either directly or indirectly, “is to add a (permanent) provision modeled after the Hyde Amendment to any health care reform that becomes law.”

• Sen. Stabenow falsely tells Fox News Sunday that the U.S. House bill containing the pro-life Stupak Amendment changes long-established law.  (11/22/09)

11/29/09 – NY Times reports on the changing attitudes toward abortion and Dr. Yoest is quoted, “Not only is this the post-Roe generation, I’d also call it the post-sonogram generation.”

11/30/09 –The U.S. Senate begins debate about Majority Leader Reid’s health care bill.

12/2/09 – Abortion rights activists including Planned Parenthood and NARAL lobbied lawmakers in an effort to torpedo the Stupak amendment and any pro-life language in health care being debated in the Senate.

• Fox News: “By confusing abortion with health care, the feminist groups and the abortion lobby actually demean women with their argument that the destruction of unborn children is essential to feminine power,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and chief executive of Americans United for Life. (12/2/09)

12/3/09 – Senate accepted the Mikulski (D-Md) amendment to the Senate health care bill by a vote of 61-39.  Under this amendment, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) could categorize abortion as “preventive care,” and would therefore recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans.  The recommendation would force private plans to offer abortion coverage.

• AUL’s Staff Counsel Mary Harned analyzes “The Murkowski v. The Mikulski Amendment.” (12/3/09)
• Planned Parenthood’s President Cecile Richards applauds the passing of the Mikulski amendment, “More than 90 percent of the care Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers provide is primary and preventive.” (U.S. News & World Report 12/3/09)
• AUL staff attorney Mary Harned says the Mikulski amendment “requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance to provide coverage for and not impose cost sharing requirements on ‘preventative care’ for women ‘as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).” (CBN David Brody File 12/3/09)

• AUL’s Mary Harned tells Life News, “the Mikulski Amendment should be amended to include language prohibiting abortion from being included in the HRSA guidelines.” (12/2/09)

• Catholic News Agency: “If the HRSA categorizes abortion as preventive care, it would recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans and force them to offer abortion coverage. [AUL Staff Counsel Mary Harned] charged that this would further ‘the abortion lobby’s agenda of mainstreaming abortion as health care.’”
• Christian Post reports that AUL wants “to see clear language prohibiting abortion” in preventive care.  (12/4/09)
• Baptist Press: “Abortion is not ‘preventive care,’” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. “In this amendment, Sen. Mikulski apparently intends to expand abortion services under the guise of mandated preventive care. This deceptive tactic underscores the need for an amendment that explicitly prohibits the government from mandating that private insurance companies cover abortion under the guise of ‘preventive care.’”

12/3/09 – Rumors that Sen. Nelson’s Stupak-like amendment will be released and voted on as soon as Friday.

• Senator Nelson said Thursday he will filibuster any health care bill without Stupak amendment-like language. (12/3/09)
• Washington Post (12/4/09): “Reid’s game plan is to let Nelson’s amendment to come to a vote, where it would presumably fail, allowing the leader to encourage immediate negotiations on alternative approaches.”
• When Sen. Nelson sought more time to present his pro-life provision, Dr. Yoest responded, “Delay is always good.” Politico (12/4/09)

12/6/09 – Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin tells “Fox News Sunday” that the abortion vote in the Senate could happen Monday.

Today the Senate accepted the Mikulski (D-Md) amendment to the Senate health care bill by a vote of 61-39.  The amendment does not explicitly require abortion coverage, but it also fails to explicitly exclude it.  The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) could categorize abortion as “preventive care,” and would therefore recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans.  The recommendation would force private plans to offer abortion coverage, furthering the abortion lobby’s agenda of mainstreaming abortion as health care.

Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, “Abortion is not ‘preventive care.’ In this amendment, Sen. Mikulski apparently intends to expand abortion services under the guise of mandated preventive care.   This deceptive tactic underscores the need for an amendment that explicitly prohibits the government from mandating that private insurance companies cover abortion under the guise of “preventive care.”

 Senator Murkowski’s amendment would have ensured that abortion is not classified by the government as “preventive care” or as a “preventive service.” The Murkowski proposal was defeated 41 to 59.

Dr. Yoest added, “The Senate failed the first test to stop mandatory abortion coverage by voting against the Murkowski proposal. Senator Murkowski’s amendment would have prevented abortion from being categorized as ‘preventive care.’  It is critical that such language be added to the Senate health care reform bill.  Otherwise, for the first time in history, the federal government could mandate that private insurance companies cover abortion.” 

To go to AUL’s analysis of the Mikulski v. Murkowski Amendment,  click here.

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

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

As the Miami Herald reported:

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

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

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

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

The Miami Herald article can be found here.

At 11:45 today, the Senate will vote on two abortion-related amendments to the Senate health care bill:  the Murkowski (R-Alaska) amendment and the Mikulski (D-Maryland) amendent.  Both amendments will require 60 votes to pass.

The Murkowski amendment

Senator Murkowski’s amendment would ensure that abortion is not classified by the government as “preventive care” or as a “preventive service.”

The amendment provides, in pertinent part:

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary, or any other governmental or quasi governmental entity, to define or classify abortion or abortion services as ‘‘preventive care’’ or as a ‘‘preventive service’’.

This amendment would answer the concerns raised by the Mikulski amendment, explained below.

The Mikulski amendment

The Mikulski amendment, in pertinent part, requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance to provide coverage for and not impose cost sharing requirements on “preventive care” for women “as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).”

While this amendment does not explicitly require abortion coverage, it also fails to explicitly exclude it.  The HRSA could categorize abortion as “preventive care,” and would therefore recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans.  The recommendation would force private plans to offer abortion coverage, furthering the abortion lobby’s agenda of mainstreaming abortion as health care.

The Obama administration today approved the first human embryonic stem cells for experiments by federally funded scientists under a new policy designed to dramatically expand embryonic stem cell research. 

Americans United for Life President and CEO Charmaine Yoest said, “Despite years of research, human embryonic stem cells have yet to be used in real therapies for patients.  On the other hand, adult stem cell research– ignored by the Obama administration– has proven effective and is already being used to treat over 70 different diseases and conditions.  The NIH’s authorization to use human embryonic stem cells expands the destruction of lives at the earliest stage of development and continues the Administration’s practice of ignoring ethical research that is already saving the lives of Americans.”

For additional background, please see http://action.aul.org/escr