The White House’s proposed executive order to “deal” with the abortion problems in the Senate health care reform bill reveals that the President will not even attempt to ensure that there is no federal funding for abortion or mandates for abortion coverage in the bill.

The first section of the proposed executive order provides that that “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism” to prevent federal funding for abortions “consistent with . . . the Hyde amendment.”  While this acknowledges that the Senate bill is not consistent with the Hyde amendment, the language of the executive order fails to describe accurately and to mirror the scope of the Hyde Amendment.

While the Hyde Amendment comprehensively prohibits the use of all federal funding that flows through Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) appropriations for both abortion and insurance plans that cover abortions, the Senate health care bill does not.  The executive order does not remedy this problem.  First, the executive order only addresses the insurance exchanges (section 2) and the Community Health Center (CHC) funding (section 3).  In other words, the executive order still leaves open the possibility that other funds authorized or appropriated through the bill could be used to directly pay for abortions.

Second, while the executive order addresses the insurance exchanges, it utterly fails to apply Hyde to them.  Section 2 of the order provides guidelines for “strict compliance” with the provisions in the bill that address how federal subsidies are handled in plans that cover abortions in the exchanges.  However, these guidelines do nothing to prevent federal subsidies from going to plans that cover abortions, which directly violates federal principles embodied in the Hyde Amendment and other federal laws, including the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

Current law forbids federal dollars from going to insurance plans that cover abortions, regardless of whether or not the dollars directly pay for abortions.  In contrast, all this section of the executive order accomplishes is strict compliance with the anti-life “abortion surcharge” provision in the bill, which segregates the portion of premiums that pays for abortions in plans that cover abortion from federal funds.

Section 3 addresses new funding for CHCs.  As a recap, the Senate bill does not prohibit these new funds from being used to pay for abortions.  While the executive order states that the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations currently prohibit the use of CHC funds for abortions, the Hyde Amendment is not applied to CHC funding by statutory law, but only by regulations from an administrative agency.

This section of the executive order states that the Hyde Amendment will apply to the new authorization and appropriation of CHC funds.  While this section may effectively prohibit the use of CHC funds for abortions, a court could interpret the statutory language as requiring the use of the funds for abortions because there is no statutory prohibition, which courts have done in the past with other health care statutory language.

Also, the executive order is not permanent law, just as regulations are not permanent law.  Either or both of these can be repealed by President Obama and his administration fairly easily.

Should this executive order remain in place, it does not even attempt to address the broad mandate authorities in the bill that could be used to require private insurance plans to cover abortions.  For instance, the Mikulski amendment to the Senate bill allows an administrative agency to determine what is “preventive care.”  If abortion is categorized as “preventive care,” private insurance plans will be required to cover abortions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Gibson is at it again with more misrepresentations and distractions.

First, Gibson cites an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that notes abortion rates continued to decline in Massachusetts after the state enacted its health care reform in 2006.  However, the article tells us little about how enacting universal health care on the federal level will affect national abortion rates.  Among things missing is the fact that there is no national data beyond 2006 that would permit us to compare Massachusetts’ abortion rate to other states.  Even reading the NEJM article in the light most favorable to the author, the most that could be claimed is that national health care reform would not raise abortion rates. 

Gibson also references an article by T.R. Reid claiming universal health care itself lowers abortion rates.  However, the statistics Reid relies on to stake his claim are both inaccurate and incomplete. The most recent data available, from 2005, reported by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control are 19.4 and 15, respectively.  These figures put the United States on par with the abortion rates for Canada and Great Britain – universal health care nations listed by Reid – and are actually lower than other government-run health care countries that Reid neglects to mention, such as Australia and Sweden.

While abortion rates are declining in the United States, they are rising in parts of Europe – including Great Britain.  While these nations have not altered their laws on health care coverage, many have liberalized their abortion laws, suggesting the latter is what drives abortion rates.

In addition, a Guttmacher Institute literature review released in 2009 shows strong consensus that abortion rates are reduced when public funding is restricted.  The review cites 20 academic studies documenting this relationship and only four that found the results of public-funding inconclusive. 

Finally, it is nothing more than a distraction to note, as Gibson does, that an organization that has “Catholic” in its name, or is comprised of Catholics, supports the bill.  An organization’s support for a bill, regardless of any religious affiliation, does not change the plain language of the bill.  The Senate bill violates the language of the Hyde Amendment and would, against the will of 70% of Americans, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, allow federal funds to pay for abortion.

Implicitly underlying all of Gibson’s arguments is the faulty idea that you cannot have universal health care without abortions.  However, the government can choose to provide universal health care without accepting the false notion that abortion is health care – a point proved in November when the House passed its bill with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment’s funding restrictions.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter provided to other members of the House today, Rep. Kildee provides the following explanation for why the abortion language in the Senate health care reform bill will not prevent him from supporting the bill – he is “convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde Amendment.”

Unfortunately, Rep. Kildee is wrong.  While the Senate bill does not alter the Hyde Amendment itself, the Hyde Amendment will not apply to the new funding in the Senate bill.  Further, the Senate bill allows part of what is explicitly forbidden by Hyde, namely, federal subsidization of insurance plans that cover abortions.  We have provided a detailed comparison of the Hyde Amendment, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment (added to the now-abandoned House health care reform bill), and the Senate abortion-funding language.  This analysis shows that while the abandoned House language mirrored the Hyde amendment, the Senate language is a radical departure from existing law.

Rep. Kildee also references a “conscience clause” in the Senate bill.  Yes, the Senate bill includes conscience language; however, the conscience clause is narrow in that 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.

Rep. Kildee notes that the Senate bill allows a state to ban insurance plans that include abortion from participating in its Exchange.  However, this changes the status quo from one where the federal government does not consider abortion to be “health care,” to one where it does and now burdens a state to take affirmative action not to fund insurance plans that cover abortions within its borders.  Even that affirmative action by a state would still not protect its citizens from having their federal tax dollars applied to pro-abortion plans in other states that do not similarly “opt-out.”

Rep. Kildee writes he disagrees that the Senate bill would lead to abortions being performed at community health centers.  However, there are no restrictions on the provision of abortion services for community health centers in the Federally Qualified Health Center authorizing statute. In fact, groups such as the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project strongly advocate for the inclusion of abortion services in community health centers as part of providing “primary care” and preventive services.

The Hyde amendment’s restrictions on abortion funding only apply to funds appropriated through the LHHS Appropriations bill and to funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated through the LHHS appropriations bill.  The Senate bill self-appropriates the $7 billion for CHCs, and the bill does not specifically provide that the new funds will be housed in a trust fund that is funded by the LHHS appropriations bill, only that it will be transferred to HHS.  Funds under the Senate bill that are merely transferred to HHS are not covered by Hyde.

Therefore, there is no guarantee that the funds will be covered by the Hyde amendment.  To prohibit the use of these funds for abortions, the Department of Health and Human Services will have to apply existing regulations, referenced by Rep. Kildee in his letter, to the funding, and those regulations will have to withstand the scrutiny of courts.  Given the current pro-abortion administration and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ staunch pro-abortion stance during her time as governor of Kansas, as well as courts’ historical inclinations to read abortion coverage and funding into statutes that do not explicitly exclude it, no one can be confident these funds will not pay for abortions.

Rep. Kildee does not mention another abortion-related concern with the bill.   Under the Mikulski amendment to the 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.”  In other words, an administrative agency could possibly use its mandate authority to require plans to cover abortions – nothing in the bill prevents it.

Rep. Kildee claims that a vote for this bill does not diminish his pro-life record.  However, a vote for this bill is a vote for the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.  It is a vote for the federal government’s acceptance of abortion as health care, in clear contradiction to longstanding federal law and policy.

We have a Bill…

Health care reform efforts are in full swing this week for the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives. Taking her cue from the President, Speaker Pelosi is attempting to paint health care reform as a done deal, in hopes of securing the votes of Members who are inclined to vote “No.”

The President’s “new” health care reform proposal, which has now been merged with his student loan initiative, is currently expected to take the form of a “reconciliation bill,” or a collection of amendments to the bill that the Senate passed on December 24, 2009.   AUL is opposed to the Senate bill’s abortion provisions, which do not adequately prevent taxpayer funding for abortion or subsidization of insurance plans that cover abortions.

In order to send health care reform to President Obama’s desk for his signature, the House must pass both the Senate-passed bill and the reconciliation bill, and upon passage, send the reconciliation bill to the Senate where Senator Reid would only need to secure 51 votes under the special reconciliation process.

Here’s where all the fun begins. According to Speaker Pelosi, “The bill is locked down . . . We’re just waiting for the Congressional Budget Office [to score the bill].”

But, a quote from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), author of the Stupak amendment, the amendment to the now-abandoned House bill which would have prohibited the use federal funds for abortion services, suggests otherwise. Rep. Stupak claims that “there is a lot of ‘arm-twisting’ to attract votes, adding that leadership officials are asking members what they want in the yet-to-be-released reconciliation package to secure their votes.”

Lending credibility to Stupak’s account of the action (in addition to the Speaker’s lack of credibility) is that House members have been informed that the current version of the reconciliation bill – the version reported out of the House Budget Committee on March 15, 2010 –  is far from the final version of the bill. Members can expect to see the “real” version of the reconciliation bill only as the Rules Committee begins consideration of the bill in the upcoming days. It’s anyone’s guess what ends up in the House reconciliation bill.

We have the Votes….

Speaker Pelosi has also stated:  “I have no intention of not passing this bill.”

We learned in English class that double negative makes a positive, but it seems here that the opposite may ultimately be true. While Speaker Pelosi “intends” to pass a healthcare bill, her Democratic whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said, “We don’t have (the votes) as of this morning.”

In addition, according to Rep. Jason Altmire, Democratic leadership is “calling the hardnosed people…who have put out firm statements saying no . . . and . . . they wouldn’t be doing that if they were anywhere close” [to having enough votes to pass the bill].

The Slaughter Solution…

Finally, and most telling, Speaker Pelosi has stated “Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill.”  As a result of this not so surprising fact, Pelosi and Chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter (D-NY) are considering a new procedural option for passing the Senate bill. The procedure, which has been termed the “Slaughter Solution,” would involve incorporating the Senate bill into the Rule for the reconciliation bill, thereby “deeming” the Senate bill passed when Members vote on the underlying Rule for the reconciliation bill. The practical effect of this solution is the Members will not actually vote on the Senate bill. They will only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. Regardless of the form of the vote, AUL will score against any vote that members take on passage of the Senate bill and its harmful abortion provisions.

Last week marked week two of the annual Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) at the United Nations in New York.  This year’s CSW was particularly significant because it marked the fifteenth anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (Beijing, 1995).  At the conference in 1995, advocates attempted to establish a “right” to abortion on demand, but were defeated when governments declared that no “right” to abortion was to be established at Beijing.

In addition to the many delegates at the United Nations last week, the halls were filled with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and individuals from all over the world there to persuade delegates to implement resolutions that contained language agreeable to their particular ideologies.  In particular, pro-choice and pro-life groups were in a tug-of-war striving to convince delegates of their respective positions.

As a part of a pro-life, pro-family coalition working at the UN, we met with delegates to communicate the importance of inserting language into proposed resolutions that fully protects and promotes the dignity and rights of women.  Many on the pro-choice side advocate that “safe abortion” and access to greater family planning programs will improve women’s overall health.  They refuse to admit what the statistics show: abortion, regardless of its legality, impacts a woman’s physical, emotional, and psychological well-being in devastating ways.  Society and the work place must adapt to support women, and never adapt women to the work place.  Affirming women’s dignity—including their fertility and unique ability to bear children—is fundamental to improving the lives of women.

Several countries’ delegates spoke Monday during the Commission’s general plenary session, including the delegate from the Holy See.  (The Holy See is the juridical personality of the Catholic Church recognized under international law.)  The Holy See stated that as this Commission undertakes a 15-year review of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Commission should critically assess the strategies of the past fifteen years and consider whether the Commission’s goals are being successfully attained.

From the successive interventions over the week in the general debate, the assessment was not entirely positive.  “It includes some light, but also many and disturbing shadows,” the Holy See delegate stated.

There have been some advances—better educational options for girls and stronger laws against domestic violence—over the past fifteen years.  However, the reality remains that women continue to suffer in many parts of the world and their inherent dignity is daily violated.

The Holy See challenged the Commission to look at the “principles, priorities, and action policies in force in international organizations, namely, that system of motivations, values, guidelines, and methodologies that guide the UN’s work on women’s issues.”  The UN’s strategies have lacked the effectiveness originally desired.  The Holy See and other pro-life nations suggested that this is because every document of international Conferences and Committees, including many Resolutions, links the achievement of personal, social, economic, and political rights to a notion of sexual and reproductive health and rights.

This approach, however, is “violent to unborn human life and is detrimental to the integral needs of women within society.”  Women’s political, economic, and social rights must receive greater attention to advance and attain the goal of respecting women’s dignity and their rights.

The fact that emphasis has been placed so heavily on sexual and reproductive health, especially in countries where even basic health care is inadequate, is distressing.  Widespread maternal mortality is a serious problem, suffered particularly by women in third world countries.  In speaking with various delegates, we emphasized that expanding reproductive health and greater access to abortion fails to adequately address the problem of maternal mortality.  In fact, countries with the greatest restrictions on abortion have the lowest maternal mortality rates.

Solutions to maternal mortality ought to include greater access to basic healthcare and nutrition, clean water and sanitations, proper prenatal care during pregnancy, and skilled birth attendants and postpartum care.  Combating these issues will be far more effective in promoting women’s dignity than the proven failure of providing greater access to “safe” abortion and family planning services.

A solution that respects the dignity of the woman also does not allow us to bypass the right to motherhood, as advocates of reproductive justice and greater access to abortion suggest.  Theresa Okafor, Director of the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage (FACH), spoke on recognizing the critical role of mothers in society: “Motherhood is a gift which is not penalized but celebrated and rewarded [in Africa] because humanity owes its survival to that gift.”  Promoting women’s dignity requires a respect and appreciation for motherhood.  To this end, we must support motherhood by investing in and improving local health systems.

In conclusion, a goal of the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action was to ensure “that women’s human rights are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal rights.”  As lobbyists last week at the United Nations, we strongly encouraged countries’ delegates to make proactive steps forward.  New strategies that affirm the inherent dignity of women and protect their basic rights must be considered and implemented with new resolve to improve the condition of women worldwide.

Advocates for Life, Americans United for Life’s new, national organization for pro-life law students, hosted a Pro-Life Lawyers and Law Students Mixer in New York City this past week, together with Columbia Law School and Fordham Law School’s pro-life groups.

Kellie Fiedorek, National Coordinator of Advocates for Life, spoke briefly on the vision and purpose of Advocates for Life.  “The purpose of these sorts of gatherings is to stimulate discussion and debate on critical legal issues impacting life,” Kellie Fiedorek said.  “We hope to cultivate a culture of courage in the pro-life community across the country by providing occasions for fellowship and dialogue.”  She thanked both Columbia and Fordham for their work in putting on the event, a perfect example of the types of educational events Advocates for Life is commencing on law school campuses across the country.

Over 40 people attended the event to meet other pro-life law students and attorneys and to hear Professor Teresa Collett from the University of St. Thomas speak on “International Law and Threats to Human Life.”  Catherine Foster, a second year law student at Georgetown, related, “It was such an inspiration to be able to listen to a giant in the legal field discuss abortion in international law.”

Professor Collett’s presentation generated dialogue on how to use the law to protect the dignity of life.  She discussed how international law is being distorted by treaty language never meant to include a right to abortion.  This idea resounded well with those present and stimulated some excellent questions following the talk.  Columbia Law Students for Life’s president, Joanne Pedone, said, “Professor Collett’s inspiring message demonstrated that, contrary to many claims by those influential in the international legal community, the evidence simply does not show that abortion promotes maternal health or is a panacea for the problems women in developing countries actually face.”

These types of lectures and receptions also allow law students to meet others in the legal world who care about protecting the rights of all human beings.  Attorneys who work in New York City, as well as several non-lawyers, expressed their appreciation to be able to attend such a lecture.  James Olsen, a third year law student at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, stated, “It’s exciting to meet other law students and practicing lawyers across the country eager to discuss life issues and the law.”

A special thanks to the executive board of Columbia Law Students for Life for hosting this event at their law school.  Facilitating discussion of these important life issues on law school campuses furthers Advocates for Life’s mission to lay the intellectual groundwork for future lawyers, legislators, and judges.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of AUL, will be on The Albert Mohler Program this afternoon. Dr. Yoest, who will be on the show live at 5:15 EDT, will discuss her recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

For a list of local stations and times the show airs, please click here. You can also listen to the show live here.

Response to David Gibson’s Analysis of CHC Provision in Senate Health Care Reform Bill

In his commentary on the Politics Daily website, David Gibson attacks pro-life opposition to the Senate health care reform bill on multiple fronts.  His analysis is mistaken, as is extensively explained in our previous blog posts and memoranda analyzing the Senate bill; however, one point deserves more explanation.

Gibson argues that new funding for Community Health Centers (CHCs) authorized and appropriated through the Senate health care reform bill (and President Obama’s plan) will not be used to pay for abortions because (a) CHCs do not perform abortions and (b) the funding will be subject to the Hyde Amendment (the abortion funding prohibition added annually to the Labor Health and Human Services appropriations bill).  Below is a point-by-point rebuttal of Gibson’s claims.

Gibson: “Most obviously, none of the 1,250 Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs, that would receive the billions in money through the reform bill offer abortion services. . . . In addition, the statement [from the National Association of Community Health Centers) said that ‘Health centers do not plan to, nor are they seeking to, become providers of abortion. . .’”

AUL: There are no restrictions on the provision of abortion services for community health centers in the Federally Qualified Health Center authorizing statute. In fact, groups such as the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project strongly advocate for the inclusion of abortion services in community health centers as part of providing "primary care" and preventive services.

Gibson: “The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has also said that none of the health centers are abortion providers, and none of them are operated by Planned Parenthood.  Moreover, it is unlikely that Planned Parenthood or any other provider of reproductive health services could qualify as a Community Health Center because these centers by law have to provide all-around care for both men and women, and for children …”

AUL: While the Federally Qualified Health Centers statute generally requires each Community Health Center to provide a broad array of primary health care services, particular centers are also specifically allowed to provide for some of the required services through contracts or cooperative arrangements.  It is certainly possible for Planned Parenthood to participate in the community health center program.

This is clearly the intent of pro-abortion members of the Senate.  During the Senate HELP Committee mark-up, an amendment by Sen. Mikulski (D-Md.) was accepted that would require insurers to cover “essential community providers [ECP’s]…that serve predominantly low-income, medically under-served individuals.” Sen. Mikulski explained the amendment as providing for “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” She acknowledged that Planned Parenthood will fall into this category of “community providers” and will therefore be included in health insurance networks under the bill.  Sen. Mikulski refused, at Sen. Hatch’s request, to include specific language in the bill excluding “abortion services” from “medically necessary or medically appropriate” care.

While CHC’s may not be precisely the same as ECP’s, pro-abortion lawmakers clearly have a plan to ensure that Planned Parenthood qualifies for grants geared towards the underserved as part of health care reform.

Gibson: “Any money from a new health care law would be subject to the same Hyde amendment restrictions as money from the Stupak version of the House bill (which allocates $12 billion to community health centers).”

AUL: Gibson is correct that the Stupak-Pitts language in the House bill mirrored the Hyde Amendment and would therefore have prohibited the use of the new funding for CHCs for abortions.  However, the Stupak-Pitts language was excluded from the Senate bill, which is awaiting a vote in the House.  The abortion funding restriction in the Senate bill applies only to the affordability and cost sharing credits, not to the provision that includes the $7 billion ($11 billion in President Obama’s proposed version) expansion of CHC funding.  The Senate had the opportunity to adopt the same strong anti-funding language found in the House bill, but instead elected to include weak language that only applies to one provision in the bill.  President Obama is adopting the Senate approach, not the House approach.

Gibson: “The language in the Senate bill is not as explicit as the House bill about the path of the money, but the health care center money can only go through HHS and thus must be subject to Hyde restrictions.  The Senate bill…’provides that this funding is to be transferred to HHS accounts to increase funding for community health centers and does not provide for segregating these funds,’ said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and a top health care expert who has done an extensive analysis of the abortion financing question. ‘Since all other HHS funding, including expenditures from trust funds, is subject to the Hyde Amendment, these funds cannot be used to pay for abortions.’”

AUL: The Hyde amendment’s restrictions on abortion funding only apply to funds appropriated through the LHHS Appropriations bill and to funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated through the LHHS appropriations bill.  The Senate bill self-appropriates the $7 billion for CHCs, and the bill does not specifically provide that the new funds will be housed in a trust fund that is funded by the LHHS appropriations bill, only that it will be transferred to HHS.  Funds under the Senate bill that are merely transferred to HHS are not covered by Hyde.

Therefore, there is no guarantee that the funds will be covered by the Hyde amendment.  To prohibit the use of these funds for abortions, the Department of Health and Human Services will have to apply existing regulations to the funding, and those regulations will have to withstand the scrutiny of courts.  Given the current pro-abortion administration and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ staunch pro-abortion stance during her time as governor of Kansas, as well as courts’ historical inclinations to read abortion coverage and funding into statutes that do not explicitly exclude it, no one can be confident these funds will not pay for abortions.

Rep. Weiner (D-NY) today in an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asserted:

“We have the Hyde Amendment that has been in place for a generation. I’m not crazy about it, but it says there should be no federal funding for abortion. That’s the law as we sit here, that will be the law after health care passes.”

Rep. Weiner is only right in pointing out that the Hyde Amendment – the prohibition on federal funding of abortion – has been the law and policy of the federal government. If the Senate bill becomes law, however, the principles of Hyde will no longer be the law.

First, the myth that the Hyde Amendment would apply to the self-appropriating health care reform bills has been debunked over and over again.

Second, Americans United for Life has written a detailed analysis of the comparison between the Hyde Amendment, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the House bill, and the Senate bill’s abortion provision. AUL has also provided a chart that explains the abortion funding contained in the Senate bill. These analyses show Rep. Weiner was wrong to claim, “What’s in the [Senate] bill is the preservation of the Hyde Amendment.”

Third, while Rep. Weiner admitted it would be “open season” for direct taxpayer funding of abortions if the Hyde Amendment is repealed, he made the outrageous claim that “The repeal of the Hyde Amendment is contemplated nowhere.” Pro-abortion organizations are bent on eliminating the Hyde Amendment, and many of the politicians they support are equally committed to the goal. It is not cynical to see the carefully written abortion language in the Senate bill as the first step in a plan to eliminate any restrictions on federal funding for abortion.

FULL UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT:

Megyn: Welcome back, folks. There is big news on health care and abortion today, and it’s coming from congressman bart stupak, he’s a prolife democrat from michigan. He gave a radio interview this morning in which he raised new charges that the health care overhaul will end up providing taxpayer dollars for abortion.

Stupak: He came back a while later, said but we want to pay for abortions. I said Mr. Chairman, that’s where we disagree, We don’t do it now, We’re not going to start. i think we should. I’m sorry, but the house has spoken. we had that debate. we won. 240-190. you forced a vote, we won, fair and square, and we’re not going to — this is what it is, if you want to move health care, keep current law.

Megyn: Congressman from New York Anthony Weiner joins me live. Congressman weiner, that is Bart Stupak, accusing henry waxman, who came up with the health care bill in the house of saying explicitly we want taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, we think that we should make that the law.

Weiner: Well, it almost doesn’t matter. Look, we have the Hyde Amendment that is been in place for a generation. I’m not crazy about it but it says there should be no federal funding for abortion. that’s the law as we sit here, that will be the law after health care passes. You know, we’re all having to make some compromises here. I started out and I’ve spoken to you about this, I believe we should have an expansion of medicare to cover all Americans, I’ve compromised school public option and a weaker public option. there are compromises people have to make. Bart Stupak isn’t actually having to make one. If you don’t want your tax dollars go to pay for abortions you’re not going to have them after this bill, you’re not going to have them today, you’re not going to have them in the last 25 years.

Megyn: That’s not what he says. He says that under the Senate plan, which you guys are now looking to pass, and I’ve looked at this myself, that anybody who buys insurance through the exchange would have — they’d have to buy $1 of their premium would go towards funding abortion. And that it gets put in a special pot but that $1 does indeed go towards funding abortion. You can opt out of the plan that funds abortions if you want, there has to be at least one that doesn’t fund abortions but his point is what average American is going to go through each of the plans and say funds abortions, they’re going to sign up for plans and their tax dollars are going to go to fund abortions. how do you respond?

Weiner: all throughout the health care infrastructure, the $2.7 trillion we pay for health care, there are times when consumers are told we can’t pay for this with taxpayer dollars, you have to pay for it on your own. that happens all the tile. it happens with abortion, unfortunately. I don’t think it should, I don’t think poor women should be denied that, but it should. It’s going to happen after this law, too.

Megyn: No. Respond to my point. The senate bill, I looked at it myself, the senate bill says that $1 per premium, or in the premiums, will go per person into a fund, and that that fund will be used to pay for abortion.

Weiner: That is not right.

Megyn: For the reproductive rights to include abortion.

Weiner:  In fact, that’s not right. Here’s the way the bill is structured now. We are going to create an exchange so every consumer can shop for the different services that they want and compare prices. That’s the good thing. What Rep.  Stupak is saying is simply because an insurance policy is in that exchange, somehow it’s getting federal dollars. That’s not the case. the fact is each individual person will be told that if they want to get an aboss, they’re not going to be — an abortion, they’re not going to be able to use any subsidy, any plan that’s provided by the federal government to do that. That’s already going to be the law. Rep. Stupak wants to go far beyond that and say that anyone who offers insurance that is going to be in this exchange, to even offer the service, it can’t even be in there, even though it gets zero federal dollars, that’s going too far.

Megyn: He says he likes the hyde amendment, which right now provides that no taxpayer dollars can be used for abortion except in certain limited cases like rape, insist, that kind of thing, but he says keep the hyde amendment law and Henry Waxman says to him no, and you heard what he said, Rep. Weiner, Henry Waxman, according to Bart stupak, said but we want to pay for abortions, we think we should. how can — how can you say that doesn’t matter?

Weiner: Hold on a second, you’re asking Anthony Weiner to comment on Megyn overhearing what Bart Stupak said? wait a minute. why don’t we talk about what’s in the law. if bart stupak says tomorrow i want to restate the hyde amendment, done. no one is objecting to that.

Megyn: Apparently someone is.

Weiner: Incorrect. no, incorrect.

Megyn: it doesn’t matter to you at all that congress — that you’ve got congressman waxman according to Stupak telling him we want to pay for aborings with taxpayer money?

Weiner: it doesn’t –

Megyn: And he says we think we should.

Weiner: What’s important is not what you’re telling me Stupak and Waxman are talking about. What’s important is what you and I are talking about, which is what’s in this bill. It’s relevant — I’ll respond and I’ll give you the floor, I promise.

Megyn: Here’s why it’s relevant. It’s because people are worried that once this thing gets passed it’s a slippery slope and that the ban on federal funding for abortion in the senate bill is tied to the hyde amendment, and if the hyde amendment, which bans taxpayer dollars going to abortion is repealed that, it will then be open season for taxpayer-funded abortions under the law.

Weiner: That would be a –

Megyn: That’s why the attitude of those in control like Waxman matters. now the floor is yours.

Weiner: The repeal of the Hyde amendment is contemplated nowhere. You would be exactly right if someone thought about repealing the Hyde amendment, we’d have a legitimate policy discussion. I’d be within own side, Stupak would be on another. That’s not being contemplated. You’re exactly right, so long as the Hyde amendment continues to be the law of the land and the Hyde amendment says as clear as paper, as paper that no federal tax dollars can go to abortion, period, end of conversation. congressman stupak wants to go beyond that. that’s the — that’s the only controversy.

Megyn: I don’t understand why Waxman would be trying to persuade Stupak to come on board and vote for this bill by saying — because Stupak is saying I don’t like it because I think money goes towards abortion. i know you disagree. but that’s what he’s saying. and waxman responds to him, congressman weiner, by saying but we think it should, this is a quote, but we want to pay for abortion.

Weiner: Megyn, I got to tell you, you’ve asked me five ways to comment on Waxman’s conversation with Stupak. isn’t it much easier that we talk about what’s in the bill and not?

Megyn: It’s not going to happen. Waxman can say whatever he wants, people don’t need to worry about that in.

Weiner: You can have a conversation about a waxman-Stupak — Waxman-Stupak conversation I did not hear.

Megyn: You heard it.

Weiner: No, I did not hear the conversation. I can tell you what’s in the bill. Maybe that would be helpful. What’s in the bill is the preservation of the Hyde amendment. What’s not in the bill is the repeal of the Hyde amendment. Whatever conversations went on about that subject, those are the facts, and so while i’m not crazy about the Hyde amendment, to say that it’s being repealed is something i haven’t even heard bart stupak is saying. I’m not saying it’s repealed, either, but he and others are worried in the future if it gets repealed.

Weiner: I think in the future we may want to have a debate whether it should be but we certainly shouldn’t do it now because there’s no need for it now.

Megyn: He’s got other concerns which i tried to voice. for the record we asked stupak and waxman to come on, neither agreed, so i appreciate you coming on and giving us down sights on it, you’re always a stand-up guy here. All the best.

Weiner: Appreciate it. …

To view the video of Rep. Stupak’s revealing coversation with Rep. Waxman, Click Here.

Testimony in Opposition to House Bill 6205

Before the House Human Services Committee

Clarke Forsythe, Esq., Senior Counsel,

Americans United for Life (AUL)

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony in opposition to House Bill 6205.

Summary

Drafted in the context of federal constitutional abortion law, and following the language of the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) (introduced as S.1173 in the 110^th Congress), House Bill (HB) 6205 declares abortion to be a “fundamental right” and prohibits any “interference” with abortion at any time of pregnancy in Illinois. Since any regulation (or condition) would “interfere” with an abortion, all regulations are effectively repealed in Illinois (unless specifically exempted by HB 6205).  The prohibition on “interference” extends throughout pregnancy (§15(a)(3)).  Among the regulations on abortion in Illinois that would be prohibited as unlawful “interference,” HB 6205 would effectively repeal Illinois’ physician-only law.  Section 20 prohibits limits on taxpayer funding of abortion as unlawful “interference.”  The sweeping scope of HB 6205 is confirmed by §40, which singles out and specifically exempts the Illinois Parental Notice Act of 1995 from the bill’s prohibitions.  HB 6205 also vests complete power and discretion in the abortion provider as to what information any adolescent or adult women might get about the nature, risks, or alternatives to abortion.  The provider exclusively determines whether the abortion patient gets informed consent.  HB 6205 vests abortionists with complete discretion to determine the “method” of “pregnancy termination,” and thus repeals the Illinois Partial-Birth Abortion Act and any other regulations on “methods.”  Consequently, if HB 6205 becomes law, any school nurse, in any public school (or any private school that receives public funds as an “agent”) could perform abortions.

Declaration of Abortion as “Fundamental Right”

HB 6205 is drafted in the context of Roe v. Wade and federal constitutional law on abortion.  HB 6205 declares abortion to be a “fundamental right.”  That invokes the “fundamental rights” analysis in constitutional law and the “strict scrutiny” judicial analysis that is applied to “fundamental rights” by state and federal courts.  Roe, 410 U.S. 113, 155-56 (1973).

Following the federal FOCA, HB 6205 prohibits any “interference” with abortion, precluding any regulation. The “strict scrutiny” judicial analysis would intensify the scope of any search for laws that “interfere” with abortion.

Furthermore, HB 6205 supersedes any existing Illinois law through the “notwithstanding” language of §15 and several other sections.  A long history of federal courts applying “strict scrutiny” to review state regulations of abortion between 1973-1989 showed that few if any regulations survived such review.  Courts applying strict scrutiny analysis struck down all regulations on abortion. The U.S. Senate Judiciary hearings on (a previous version of) FOCA in 1992 confirmed that the application of “strict scrutiny”—to strike down any limits on abortion—was the aim of FOCA.

HB 6205 would not simply “codify” Roe in Illinois but go far beyond Roe by declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right.”  No majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a “fundamental right” or applied the “strict scrutiny” analysis to abortion-related laws for 24 years—since Thornburgh v. ACOG, 476 U.S. 747, 763 (1986).  The Supreme Court does not currently treat abortion as a “fundamental right” and has upheld the constitutionality of many abortion regulations and restrictions.  Thus, HB 6205 would sweep away all the common sense regulations that the US Supreme Court, applying Roe, has allowed.

Strict scrutiny cannot justifiably be applied to abortion because there are countervailing interests that strict scrutiny would completely ignore by treating abortion as “fundamental.”  These include the public health interest in ensuring, through appropriate regulations, that abortion is safe for women, that women are informed of all risks and alternatives. These interests—separately and together—justify regulation and public health oversight of abortion. HB 6205 would eliminate all health and safety regulations and vest the provider with complete and utter discretion as to health and safety procedures and as to what information any adolescent or adult woman is given.

“Health” Exception After Viability

The proposed prohibition on “interference” with abortion extends throughout pregnancy, from conception to birth.  The unrestricted right to abortion extends to “any time during a pregnancy” for reasons of “health.” The “health” exception of §15(a)(3)(ii) incorporates the “health” exception in abortion law as defined in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).  In abortion law, “health” means “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. at 192.  Thus, there is a right to abortion after viability for any minor for such “health” reasons.  Consequently, the “health” exception swallows the rule and completely eliminates any regulation before or even after viability.  Given the Doe definition of health in abortion law, the “health” exception is no limitation at all.  It means abortion on demand at any time of pregnancy.

Prohibition Against Discrimination in Public Funding

HB 6205 also proposes to prohibit discrimination against abortion in public funding to any individual “eligible for State Medicaid assistance” or “medical assistance” “at least to the same extent as other comparable services.”  Such discrimination “constitutes” an “interference” under §15.  The “discrimination” prong would eliminate any law affecting public funding that would treat abortion differently from childbirth and would require equal treatment.  Public funding of abortion and childbirth are clearly required to be equal.  Moreover, it is possible that public funding of abortion is required, even if childbirth is not funded, by the “interference” prong.

Overturning the Physician-Only Law in Illinois

Sections 15 and 25 of HB 6205 will overturn Illinois’ physician-only law that limits abortion practice to licensed physicians. Section 25 does not require that abortions be done by a physician, merely that they be done “in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice.”  This loophole is confirmed by the second sentence of section 25 which immunizes a “qualified medical professional.” Forty-three states and the District of Columbia have such laws, and they have been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court (Connecticut v. Menillo, 423 U.S. 9 (1975); Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997)).  HB 6205 does this by prohibiting any “interference.”  Although “physician” is defined in HB 6205, “qualified medical professional” is not.  §25 replaces any legal standard for liability with a subjective medical standard (“in accordance with accepted medical standards of medical practice” and “clinical judgment of the attending medical professional”).  HB 6205 specifically immunizes any “medical professional” from any civil or criminal claim in §25(a).  HB 6205 invalidates any limitation on who can do abortions and any limitations on public facilities where abortions can be performed.

Overturning Illinois’ Prohibition on Partial-Birth Abortion

Section 25 also overturns Illinois’ prohibition on partial-birth abortion and any other limits on methods of abortion by authorizing any “medical professional” to do abortion by any “method that, in the clinical judgment of the attending medical professional, will best serve the interests of the pregnant patient.”

Immunity for any “medical professional” performing abortions

Superseding any other existing Illinois law, §25 also immunizes any “qualified medical professional” from civil or criminal liability for performing any abortion as long as the abortion is “performed in good faith, in accordance with the attending medical professional’s good faith clinical judgment and accepted standards of medical practice.”  §25 eliminates any legal regulations relating to medical safety and vests any “medical professional” with exclusive discretion in the performance of abortion. This vague and subjective standard immunizes a doctor from any suit for malpractice.

Replaces Illinois Conscience Laws with Limited Protection Under §45

Illinois has two laws protecting rights of conscience, one of which dates back to 1973 or 1974.  Since laws protecting rights of conscience are alleged to “interfere” with access to abortion, section 15 would eliminate such laws.   A proposed Section 45 would apparently preserve the Health Care Right of Conscience Act but not the abortion-specific conscience law from 1973-74.

Conclusion

By elevating abortion to a “fundamental right,” and prohibiting any “interference” with or “discrimination” against abortion, HB 6205 would nullify:

• Requirement that only licensed physicians perform abortions, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat.  510/3.1 (2008);
• Regulations establishing minimum health and safety standards for abortion clinics, 210 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/3, et seq. (2008); Ill. Admin. Code tit. 77 §§ 205.330, 205.540 and 205.710 (2005);
• Limitations on the use of state taxpayer funds for abortion counseling and referrals, 410 ILCS §230/4-100 (2008);
• Limitations on the use of state taxpayer funds to purchase insurance coverage for abortions, 5 ILCS 375/6.1 (2008);
• Limitations on the performance of post-viability abortions, 720 ILCS § 510/5 (2008);
• Protection for infants who survive an attempted abortion, 5 ILCS §70/1.36 (2008); and
• Protections for healthcare providers and institutions that refuse to perform abortions. 745 ILCS 30/1  (2010)
• Moreover, it would unilaterally trump Illinois’ long-standing policy that “solemnly declare[s] and find[s] . . . that the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child’s right to life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws and Constitution of this State. . . . ” 720 ILCS § 510/1 (Enacted 1975; Last Amended 1979).

Response to claims made by Matthew Boudway of Commonweal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Boudway responds.

AUL Files Brief in Mexican Supreme Court Detailing Abortion’s Risks

WASHINGTON, DC – Attorneys with Americans United for Life have filed a brief in the Mexican Supreme Court supporting a constitutional amendment from the Mexican state of Baja that protects human life from conception.  In its brief, AUL argues that protecting unborn life also works to protect women from the harms of abortion.

“The Mexican Supreme Court has a unique opportunity to learn from the devastating consequences of the United States’ 37-year ‘experiment’ with abortion-on-demand,” said Denise Burke, a senior attorney with AUL.  “The medical evidence detailed in our brief proves that abortion hurts women and is not the panacea that pro-abortion advocates promised.”

Following a controversial 2008 ruling by the Mexican Supreme Court upholding a Mexico City law permitting first trimester abortions, 15 of Mexico’s 31 states passed constitutional amendments protecting human life from conception.  Most of these amendments passed overwhelmingly.  Passed in December 2008, Baja’s amendment garnered some legislative opposition and a constitutional challenge was later brought by Francisco Javier Sánchez, a former Baja human rights commissioner.  The Mexican Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge, but no hearing date has been set.

FOR THE FACTS, CLICK BELOW

AUL Amicus Brief- Spanish

AUL Amicus Brief- English translation

Joe Davis Jr. suffered from sickle cell anemia when he was an infant. His prognosis was bleak. His life was expected to be short, painful, and full of visits to the hospital. There was no cure for his condition.

Then the Davis family learned of a new treatment: a transplant using adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Now they just had to find a donor match. Unfortunately, cord blood banks are both underfunded and undersourced – and in the African American community donations were low.

Then Joe Jr.’s mother learned she was pregnant. Their second son, Isaac, would turn out to be a perfect donor match for his brother.

When Isaac was born, Joe Jr. was injected with stem cells from Isaac’s umbilical cord blood. Joe Jr. was immediately cured – no trace of sickle cell anemia since the transplant.

Today, eight years later, the Davis boys were at the nation’s capitol to tell their moving story. Said Isaac about the brother he helped save, “He’s my best friend. I love him very much.”

A bipartisan bill introduced in Congress aims to facilitate more stories like the Davis family’s. The Patients First Act (H.R. 877) co-sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) and Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) would prioritize government funded stem cell research towards treating and curing patients. The bill supports all stem cell research so long as human embryos are not destroyed, discarded, or injured.

The great thing about those two goals – ensuring research is 1. ethically responsible and 2. cure centered – is they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ethical research using adult stem cells has been used to successfully treat over 70 conditions including sickle cell anemia, cancers, auto-immune diseases, cardiovascular damage, etc. (more information about adult stem cell cures available at www.stemcellresearchfacts.org)

Embryo-destructive stem cell research, on the other hand, has successfully treated nothing.

Put simply: this bill makes sure our tax dollars are going to research where we are going to see our money’s worth. It encourages cures without costing lives. At a time when our nation is combating rising health care costs, investing in effective ethical adult stem cell research is the responsible thing to do.

The Patients First Act discourages government funded dead-end projects and enables more donors to be “best friends.”

If you’re on Twitter, you can win an AUL gift pack consisting of a baseball cap, a reusable tote bag, and a copy of Defending Life 2010.

All you need to do is follow @AULaction and @AUL on Twitter and then retweet our original message or copy and paste the text below in your own tweet:

Win an AUL gift pack – follow @AUL & @AULaction then RT this post before 12pm EST on Wed.

We will pick a winner sometime after noon Wednesday. You must be following us and have tweeted some form of the message above to win.

Mailee R. Smith, Staff Counsel

Abortion advocates have long claimed that access to legal abortion is necessary to protect women’s health and that bans on abortion inevitably result in increased incidents of maternal death.  However, a groundbreaking study—that will be formally published later this year—refutes these claims.

Researchers in Chile have found that that banning abortion does not translate into increased maternal mortality.  In fact, Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist on the faculty of medicine at the University of Chile, reports that “access to legal abortion does not appear to be necessary to achieve low rates of maternal deaths.”

While considered a “developing nation,” Chile offers a unique opportunity to examine the impact of abortion laws on maternal mortality.  Abortion was legal there from 1931 until 1988, but was completely outlawed in 1989.  As a result, Chile now maintains one of the strictest abortion bans in the world.  And unlike many nations—including the United States—Chile has maternal health data dating back to the beginning of the 1900s.

The study, which examined maternal deaths form 1960 to 2007, reveals that maternal mortality peaked in 1961, right in the midst of legalized abortion.  During that year, abortion caused 34 percent of maternal deaths.  But by 2007 (and 8 years of an operative abortion ban), maternal mortality rates had been reduced 97.9 percent.

The researchers also note that while abortion in Chile is currently “fully clandestine,” it occurs in very low-risk, sanitary conditions.  Thus, this ground-breaking study also severely undercuts abortion advocates’ claims that comprehensive abortion bans will force women into unsafe, unsanitary illegal abortions.

It is also significant that this important data is coming from a country in South America—an area of the world where abortion proponents are vehemently seeking to impose their radical abortion agenda on developing nations.

Once again, the medical data supports what we have been saying all along: abortion harms women, and abortion restrictions are key to protecting both mothers and their children.

For more on Chile and for an abstract of the study, go to Abortion Ban Does Not Mean More Maternal Deaths, Chilean Study Finds, available at http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62102.

Angie Jackson received national attention for live-tweeting her chemical abortion.  Her aim was to “demystify” abortion and let women know it was “not that bad.”  What she achieved, however, was a muddling of the truth about the abortion drug RU-486 (also known as mifepristone, or by its brand name, Mifeprex).

Angie’s messages claim the side-effects of the abortion drug are exaggerated.  However, 99 percent of women in the U.S. clinical trial of the drug experienced at least one adverse effect from the drug – 23 percent of which were severe.

Women who take RU-486 report “significantly longer bleeding” and “significantly higher levels” of pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea than women who have surgical abortions.  In addition, the long term effects of RU-486 on women, such as on fertility and future pregnancy, are not known.   And an improper regimen of RU-486, as pushed by Planned Parenthood, has proven fatal for women – including four women who died in one week alone after a California Planned Parenthood facility provided them with RU-486.

FDA approval of RU-486 should not be confused with its “safety.” The abortion drug was approved through the FDA’s “Accelerated Approval Regulations.”  These regulations were designed for drugs “that have been studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatment.”

Yet, RU-486 was not adequately tested for its safety and effectiveness and it does not provide any meaningful therapeutic benefit over surgical abortions already available.  In one study, RU-486 failed in 18.3 percent of patients, while surgical abortions failed in only 4.7 percent of patients. (Taken alone, RU-486 fails in one-third of cases, so the regime includes a second drug – a prostaglandin – that must also be taken.) Moreover, pregnancy is not a serious or life-threatening illness.

RU-486 should not have been approved under this accelerated procedure.

While Angie may have lacked the agenda-motivation of abortion advocacy groups who claim RU-486 is “safe” and “easy,” her appeal to anecdotal experience and emotion instead of the facts is just as dangerous.

Instead of having RU-486 pushed as “legal and easy,” women deserve exposure of the risks the abortion drug poses to their health, and to know how it was wrongly fast-tracked for approval.  Women deserve a real “demystification” of abortion.

The Need for Informed Consent: The Risks of IVF are Becoming Clearer
Mailee R. Smith, Staff Counsel

For decades now, women have been undergoing the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) without truly knowing the risks that IVF might hold for their health or the health of their children.  This is due in significant part to lax informed consent requirements.  There are no universal informed consent requirements for facilities where IVF is performed and most states have not enacted comprehensive regulations. 

Notably, there is also very little data on the complications arising from IVF, especially for unborn children.  We know that the hormones women typically receive during IVF can cause them to develop cancer and other health issues in the future.  But the percentage of women affected and its impact on their unborn children, as well as other types of potential complications, are not fully understood.

However, last week Europe’s leading reproductive health medical journal, Human Reproduction, published a study demonstrating that women who become pregnant with a single child (as opposed to multiples) following IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have an increased risk of stillbirth.

The study involved over 20,000 pregnancies between 1989 and 2006—a massive study.  After adjusting for all relative factors—such as age, smoking habits, alcohol and coffee intake, and others—it was revealed that women who conceived using IVF or ICSI had a significant four-fold increased risk of stillbirth.

Importantly, the researchers found that this increased risk is not likely due to the underlying infertility issues that drove women to IVF in the first place; rather it is likely due to other factors, such as the technology involved in IVF.

This stunning conclusion begs the question: Do women undergoing IVF know of such risks?

In general, the answer is no.  Only one state—Pennsylvania—has meaningful regulation of the IVF industry.  And no state requires that women give fully informed consent before undergoing the process.

For example, women (and their partners) need to know that there are major known risks involved with hormone treatment and egg retrieval.  But currently, most states do not even require that women be told the likelihood (or unlikelihood, as the case may be) that their IVF procedures will even succeed in producing a viable embryo for transplantation.

What emerges is a state of “business” where those in the IVF industry are luring in already-vulnerable women—women desperate to have children—and failing to inform them of the risks to their own bodies as well as to the health of their potential children.  This means that women who have already experienced devastation will potentially be left to deal with another devastating blow: stillbirth.

For the last several years, AUL has advocated that states protect women and their families by passing comprehensive assisted reproductive technology (ART) regulations, including stringent informed consent requirements.  A copy of AUL’s model bill is available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides.

For more information on regulating IVF, please see Preserving Human Dignity: Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) by Clarke Forsythe in Defending Life 2009, available at http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/preserving-human-dignity-regulation-of-assisted-reproductive-technologies-art .

Combating the True “Back Alley”: Closure of Pennsylvania Abortion Clinic Dramatically Underscores Need for Medically-Appropriate Regulation
By Denise M. Burke

Since the 1960s, abortion proponents have argued that legalized abortion is beneficial to the health and well-being of American women.  In support of this assertion, they have often put forth a litany of purported advantages.  A primary advantage they often cite is increased medical safety for women undergoing abortions.

When their campaign to legalize abortion began, abortion proponents argued that if abortion was legal the procedure would be safer for women because it would become an accepted part of mainstream medical care, proper surgical procedures and standards for pre- and post- surgical care would be followed, and skilled and reputable gynecologists and surgeons would perform the procedure.  Simply, unskilled and incompetent butchers would no longer perform abortions.

These were the promises.  But has it proven to be the reality?  Has 37 years of legalized abortion eliminated these problems from our national consciousness?  No, it has not and a case out of Pennsylvania last week aptly demonstrates that abortion clinics across the nation have become the true “back-alleys” of abortion mythology.

On both February 18 and February 23, 2010, federal agents raided the Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic in Philadelphia and found “deplorable and unsanitary” conditions including blood on the floors, parts of aborted children stored in jars, and post-operative recovery areas that consisted solely of recliners.  During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that the clinic’s director, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, typically did not arrive at the clinic until 6 pm each day and sanctioned the performance of gynecological exams and the administration of controlled substances and prescription medication by non-licensed staff at the clinic.

Gosnell’s license to practice medicine was immediately suspended and the clinic was closed down.  In its order, the Pennsylvania Department of State’s Medical Board specifically cited to a November 20, 2009 case where a woman died after being given two rounds of painkillers and anesthesia prior to an abortion, but did not mention the dozens of medical malpractices suits filed against Gosnell.

Sadly, the Philadelphia clinic is not an aberration.  Substandard and unsafe abortion clinics are currently operating across the nation.

Enacting comprehensive abortion clinic regulations is a critical and sensible solution to the problem of unsafe, “back-alley” abortions in America.  These regulations are designed to safeguard against unsanitary conditions, inferior equipment, and the employment of unsuitable and untrained personnel.  They are also intended to put an end to substandard medical practices that injure and kill untold numbers of women each year.

For the last 10 years, AUL has worked to remedy the epidemic of substandard conditions at the nation’s abortion clinics, advocating for medically-appropriate and comprehensive health and safety regulations at abortion clinics and defending such laws when they are challenged in court by abortion providers more concerned with plying their trade without legitimate oversight and protecting their “bottom-line” than with women’s health and safety. 

Specifically, AUL has developed both “The Abortion Patients’ Enhanced Safety Act,” mandating that abortion clinics meet the same exacting standards as ambulatory surgical clinics, and “The Women’s Health Protection Act,” prescribing minimum health and safety regulations (based, in part, on internal – but not mandatory — treatment protocols from Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation).

AUL’s model legislation for regulating abortion clinics is available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

And for more information on the need for abortion clinic regulations and more examples of substandard care at abortion clinics, please see http://dl.aul.org/abortion/abortion-clinic-regulations-combating-the-“true-back-alley”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 22, 2010 Update

On Monday morning, February 22, 2010, President Obama unveiled a “new” health care reform proposal.  The White House proposal is a modification of the Senate-passed bill.  However, the White House failed to remove the anti-life language.  Therefore, all of AUL’s concerns about the bill’s abortion-related provisions, conscience provision, and end-of-life provisions remain.  Further, the White House proposal dramatically increases funding – by 11 billion dollars – for “community health centers” which will include Planned Parenthood abortion centers.  Because the proposal lacks a blanket prohibition on the use of federal funds for abortions, these new funds could be used to directly pay for abortions.

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.

February 22, 2010 Update

On Monday morning, February 22, 2010, President Obama unveiled a “new” health care reform proposal.  The White House proposal is a modification of the Senate-passed bill.  However, the White House failed to remove the anti-life language.  Therefore, all of AUL’s concerns about the bill’s abortion-related provisions, conscience provision, and end-of-life provisions remain.  Further, the White House proposal dramatically increases funding – by 11 billion dollars – for “community health centers” which will include Planned Parenthood abortion centers.  Because the proposal lacks a blanket prohibition on the use of federal funds for abortions, these new funds could be used to directly pay for abortions.

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.

Video of Dr. Charmaine Yoest at CPAC 2010 speaking at a panel discussion entitled, “Saving Freedom One Life at a Time.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, will be participating in a panel discussion today at CPAC. The panel, “Saving Freedom One Life at a Time”, will start at 9:15 a.m. EST. You can watch the panel discussion on Townhall’s CPAC video stream.

More on the rest of AUL’s participation at CPAC can be found here.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of AUL, will be speaking at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, DC this Friday, February 19th at 9:15am Eastern time on the topic “Saving One Life at a Time.” The conference started this morning and runs through Saturday evening. Marco Rubio and Jim DeMint spoke already this morning.

If you would like to meet Dr. Yoest at the conference, you have that opportunity. Using your cell phone, send a text message to the number 68398 and be sure to include the word AUL in the body of your message.

We will send you a text message back with a specific time and place where Dr. Yoest can meet everyone.

If you’d like more information on AUL at CPAC we are in booth # 107 in the Exhibit Hall.

If you can’t make it to Washington, you can join us virtually. Here are some options for you:

1) Watch the “Saving One Life at a Time” panel live online on Friday at 9:15 a.m. EST:

a. Tune in to Townhall.com’s UStream live streaming of CPAC, click here.
b. You can also view CPAC on C-Span online, click here.

2) You can also watch on C-Span on your TV. You can view C-Span’s TV schedule here.

3) Follow us on Twitter at CPAC: Our Twitter accounts are: @aul and @charmaineyoest.

4) Join us on Facebook: Americans United for Life and Charmaine Yoest.

5) Catch our exclusive interviews, photos, events and AUL news at CPAC at our Americans United for Life blog. We will also be live-blogging from the CPAC blogger lounge: blog.aul.org.

6) Follow tweets from the conference using the Twitter hashtag of #cpac10 or at CPACtweets.com.

7. If you’re at the conference, you can also check in on Foursquare.

In honor of today’s holiday (that most people refer to as Presidents’ Day), here are some quotations from American presidents on the issue of life.

Thomas Jefferson
“The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

Ronald Reagan
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”

George W. Bush
“It’s important to promote a culture of life. A hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters. The ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life.”

Ronald Reagan
“I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn’t? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.”

George H.W. Bush
“I wanted to take just a few brief moments to restate my firm support of our cause and to share with you my deep personal concern about our American tragedy of abortion on demand. We are concerned about abortion because it deals with the lives of two human beings, mother and child. I know there are people of good will who disagree, but after years of sober and serious reflection on the issue, this is what I think. I think the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe versus Wade was wrong and should be overturned….[Y]ou and hundreds of thousands with you across the country have raised a voice of moral gravity about abortion, a voice of principle, a voice of faith, a full voice that properly asserts and affirms the basic dignity of human life. I’m confident that more and more Americans every year — every day — are hearing your message and taking it to heart. And, ladies and gentlemen — and, yes, young people as well — I promise you that the President hears you now and stands with you in a cause that must be won. God bless you all, and God bless life.”

Ronald Reagan
“Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide.”

George W. Bush
“Last year Cardinal O’Connor said, ‘It is my very sincere prayer that if I live for a week, if I live for twenty years, my last breath will be in support for the sacredness of every human life.’ As a country, we too, must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. ”

Gerald Ford
“One of the most controversial issues of our time and one in which we share a keen interest is the question of abortion. I have grave concern over the serious moral questions raised by this issue. Each new life is a miracle of creation. To interfere with that creative process is a most serious act. In my view, the Government has a very special role in this regard. Specifically, the Government has a responsibility to protect life–and indeed to provide legal guarantees for the weak and unprotected. It is within this context that I have consistently opposed the 1973 decision of the .Supreme Court. As President, I am sworn to uphold the laws of the land and I intend to carry out this responsibility. In my personal view, however, this court decision was unwise. I said then and I repeat today–abortion on demand is wrong.”

Ronald Reagan
“Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right.”

Theodore Roosevelt
“[A] physician of wealth and high standing had seduced a girl and then induced her to commit abortion-I rather lost my temper, and wrote to the individuals who had asked for the pardon, saying that I extremely regretted that it was not in my power to increase the sentence. ”

George W. Bush
“We must appreciate the dignity of life in all its seasons, even the path of the elderly in the twilight of their years, to work toward the day when every child, born and unborn, is welcomed to life and protected by law.”

Ronald Reagan
“We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life.”

While abortion advocates like NARAL are targeting pregnancy resource centers and their life-saving work in states like Washington and Virginia, those same centers got a boost this week in Oklahoma.

On Rose Day, the annual pro-life lobbying day in the Oklahoma legislature, the Senate unanimously passed AUL’s model resolution supporting the state’s pregnancy centers. Pro-life advocate Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, was present to discuss the importance of standing up for our shared pro-life values and seeing them implemented in law. The resolution was introduced by Oklahoma Senator Dan Newberry.

Senator Newberry said it was important that the Senate express support for organizations that help women make life-affirming choices regarding pregnancy and parenting. “As hundreds of Oklahomans gather today at the Capitol to promote and support the lives of the unborn, it is only appropriate that the Senate honor groups that provide assistance for women who choose childbirth over abortion,” said Newberry, R-Tulsa. “Pregnancy Resource Centers operate primarily through voluntary donations and the time and commitment of individuals who genuinely care about promoting and protecting life. We strongly support their efforts to serve women and men facing unplanned pregnancies.”

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