10 Comments

Did I say this would happen? The following is an excerpt from an article by the NRLC on the new inclusion of the Obama “health care plan” that would completely and utterly void the Stupak amendment:

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.

Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record, said in a press release following release of the Reid language: “It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill.” The Capps language referred to was opposed by NRLC and other pro-life organizations and was deleted by the House by a vote of 240-194 on November 7, as 64 Democrats (one fourth of all House Democrats), along with 176 Republicans, voted to replace it with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prevent federal subsidies for abortion by applying the principles of longstanding federal laws such as the Hyde Amendment to the new programs created by the health care legislation. Those principles prohibit both direct funding of abortion procedures, and subsidies for plans that cover elective abortions, in existing federal programs such as Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the military.

Regrettably but predictably, Reid rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts language. Instead, Reid has sought to please the militant minority that demands funding of abortion through federal programs, even though substantial majorities of Americans believe that abortion should be excluded from government-funded and government-sponsored health programs.

The Reid bill establishes a big new federal health insurance program, the public option (although now referred to in Reid’s bill as the “community health insurance option”). The bill authorizes (on page 118) the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it.

In addition, the bill creates new tax-supported subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand.

National Right to Life will continue to fight for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and to oppose the stubborn attempts of congressional Democratic leaders to establish new federal government programs that will fund coverage of elective abortions.”

The Democrats absolutely do not intend to exclude abortion coverage in any way, and they purposely disguise the inclusions with misleading, colorful, and vague wording to try and fool us into believing the bill is bipartisan when it’s SO clearly not. Hey Dems, here’s a news flash: We can see right through you, even though you’re living in la-la land and don’t like to admit it to yourselves, and we’re going to fight to the end to stop you from killing our children.

And to all you pro-LIFERS out there, take action NOW by contacting your Senators and Representatives to tell them where you stand. They work for YOU, so it’s up to YOU to protect the most innocent right now when they need it the most!

[Reply]

@Leah, Maybe you didn’t read the post….I was responding to “libhomo” who was upset for the “antichoice” vote of Democrats….before barfing insults, learn to read and interpret.
And of course I think that birth control “counseling” should be covered, what I am opposed to is to use abortions (and me paying for them)for that very purpose. It doesn’t have to do anything with choice or anti-choice and everything with values and morals. You know what is a better choice and is free of charge? Keep your legs crossed if you can’t afford to get pregnant. Life is a gift, and we should treat as such.
FYI: it doesn’t have anything to do with “right-wing fundamentalists”….let me illustrate you…..it was the center-democrats (no right or left) who were opposed to use tax-payer money for abortions…the deal was to appease them…. it is a matter of morals, not political parties.

[Reply]

Mka, did you *read* the blog posted by the commenter above or did you just start foaming at the mouth at the mention of the word “abortion?”

It’s easy enough to toss around statements like “use some other birth control method.” The stark reality is, if right-wing fundamentalists in Congress block legislation requiring insurers to cover birth control counseling and provision, they will be at least partially responsible for some of the very abortions that they mouth off about wanting to prevent. Hypocrisy, much?

[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

@Leah, Maybe you didn’t read the post….I was responding to “libhomo” who was upset for the “antichoice” vote of Democrats….before barfing insults, learn to read and interpret.
And of course I think that birth control “counseling” should be covered, what I am opposed to is to use abortions (and me paying for them)for that very purpose. It doesn’t have to do anything with choice or anti-choice and everything with values and morals. You know what is a better choice and is free of charge? Keep your legs crossed if you can’t afford to get pregnant. Life is a gift, and we should treat as such.
FYI: it doesn’t have anything to do with “right-wing fundamentalists”….let me illustrate you…..it was the center-democrats (no right or left) who were opposed to use tax-payer money for abortions…the deal was to appease them…. it is a matter of morals, not political parties.

[Reply]

The Stupack Amendment isn’t the only anti- woman part of this health care bill. The bill also neglects basic Well Woman Visits and birth control See the Nation Magazine’s blog for more details:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/lerner

“None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological “well visit,” leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from “cost sharing,” which means that, depending on what’s in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets.”

If this is true then I expect Moms Rising to get involved and get LOUD! I am disgusted by Stupack, but this is beyond horrible. Please, can you all get to the bottom of this?

[Reply]

I am completely shocked and in dismay that a web site title “Moms Rising” is in any support of abortion. Am I getting this wrong? Please tell me I am wrong. This group doesn’t really believe that abortion, killing an innocent human is their choice or right? What has happened to our world and the mothers of our children?

[Reply]

Laura Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

@laylasgsm, I second the motion. If this is the case, and Moms Rising is supporting abortion, I am incredibly disappointed and will have no choice but to quit supporting and endorsing this site and will inform everyone I know about this development.

[Reply]

@libhomo: I don’t see it as anti-choice, but anti-abortion. And aren’t the fundamentals of life in a free world essential for successful living? The Constitution is the most fundamental and valuable piece of law we have in our country because it makes us free people with rights, one of them being the right to LIVE and not die by someone else’s hand. Do you believe we should do away with that fundamental? If not, doesn’t that make you a core fundamentalist too? Furthermore, I’m fiercely, actively, and peacefully pro-LIFE, and that’s about the farthest you can get from the Taliban. I believe all babies should have a chance to live no matter how they were conceived, just as we all were given the chance by our mothers. As for the Stupak amendment, it was a small victory, but I believe the Obama admin will get their way when all’s said and done, and I’ll be forced to pay for women who opt to choose themselves over the lives of their babies. I think our lawmakers passed the amendment for exactly the reason the article above states, “to appease conservatives and pro-life legislators,” and that any restrictions on abortion coverage in the “health care reform” will be removed from the final product. Obama plans to sign a treaty with the rest of the world in December which will forfeit our nation’s sovereignty, and EVERYTHING is fair game after that happens, which just re-affirms my belief that our country is on a slippery slope I’m not at all convinced it can pull out of.

[Reply]

Using abortions as “birth control” is immoral and irresponsible. If you don’t want to get pregnant keep your legs crossed or use some other birth control method, but killing an innocent life is despicable. Abortions should be permitted only in very specific situations, but NEVER as a means to fix “living la vida loca”.

[Reply]

If the Democrats push through an anti choice “healthcare reform” bill, I will vote party line Green in November 2010. I am so sick of militant, anti American fundamentalists abusing the political process to push through their Taliban style political agenda.

[Reply]

Leave a Comment