Skip to content

Quick List 090721 and Action Item

July 21, 2009

Very important:

http://www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=276

 

See also (not all are related to that topic):

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072004.html (see excerpts at end of this post)

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072002.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5242.html (see excerpt at end of this post)

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5247.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5249.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5248.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5246.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5245.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
ALeqM5jWzNVWyAB0qB_QWp1e5ajEfi59rgD99ISK182

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=612196

http://www.sba-list.org/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4179747/siteapps/
advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?aid=12575

http://www.americanprinciplesproject.org/resources/life-issues/
175-the-embryo-as-human-being-the-scientific-case.html

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-161.shtml

 

The article at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072004.html partially says:

In a Sunday article, the Times reported that White House budget director Peter Orszag refused to rule out taxpayer money paying for abortion under the bill.

“I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now,” said Orszag. “It’s obviously a controversial issue, and it’s one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.”

Orszag’s response corresponds to the refusal by committees in both chambers to pass several amendments that would have explicitly restricted the government-funded healthcare from covering abortion. In addition, major pro-abortion groups have praised the new healthcare arrangement as setting the stage for promoting abortion as “basic healthcare.”

and says:

Although news of the troubling implications of the health care plan – which Rep. Chris Smith has called “the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade” – has trickled only slowly to the public forum, it appears that Americans are beginning to take notice.

You can help that “trickle” of awareness to spread further by encouraging more people to speak up for life and the protection of conscience rights. Even people who say ” I wouldn’t have an abortion, but I wouldn’t stop someone else who wants one” should be able to recognize that it is wrong to force taxpayers to fund something that they deeply oppose on moral grounds and to force providers (medical personnel and insurance personnel) who morally object to participation in services/coverage of abortion.

The article continues to say:

According to a National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) fact sheet, while the bill does not mention abortion, prior legal interpretations of federal statutory law indicates that abortion coverage will inevitably be read into the bill. The final say on whether the essential package covers abortion will belong to an advisory committee under the purview of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, one of the most notoriously pro-abortion U.S. politicians. Private insurers, in turn, will be pressured under the bill to meet the government’s standard of “essential healthcare coverage.”

“These bills, which President Obama is pushing hard, would result in federally mandated coverage of abortion by nearly all health plans, federally mandated recruitment of abortionists by local health networks, and nullification of many state abortion laws,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “They would also result in federal funding of abortion on a massive scale.

 

A different article (at http://www.lifenews.com/nat5242.html ) on the same subject explains/expands the points in this way:

Under the proposed legislation, virtually every individual will be required to have health care coverage that meets “minimum benefits standards” established by the administration.

Those minimum benefits will include abortion unless Congress acts to explicitly exclude abortion from any government mandated coverage or taxpayer funded health plan. Historical experience with federal statutes demonstrates that if abortion is not explicitly excluded, administrative agencies and the courts will mandate it.

“There is no doubt that this process will result in mandated coverage of abortion, along with federal subsidies for such coverage, unless Congress explicitly excludes abortion,” Pitts said in a statement LifeNews.com received.

Pitts said Congress can’t leave the determination on abortion up to the Obama administration because Obama has said “reproductive care is essential care, basic care” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has added, “reproductive health includes access to abortion.”

Pitts said that pro-life advocates had to include amendments to annual spending bills covering Medicaid and the Indian Health Service because the federal government began paying for abortions without Congressional approval.

When it comes to HR 3200, Pitts says the bill must include abortion exclusions.

“Under this bill, any individual who does not have a plan that meets the minimum benefit standards will be forced to pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty. And any employer who does not provide coverage that meets these standards will pay up to an 8 percent tax penalty,” he said. “This means that Americans who do not want a plan that pays for abortion will be penalized for it.

“In addition to mandating coverage of abortion, this bill will provide massive subsidies for abortion. It will authorize and appropriate funding for premium subsidies,” he added.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: