Let’s be clear: anti-life politicians, with obdurate persistence, are committed to funding abortions with tax-payer dollars.
GLADE PARK, Colorado (Catholic Online) - On October 8, 2009, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sent a letter to Congress expressing their disappointment that progress had not been made in protecting the sanctity of life in the proposed health care reform bill.The Bishops urged Congress to:
"Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test" (usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-10-08-healthcare-letter-congress.pdf).
Congress continues to ignore our Bishops. In a blatant display of disregard for the lives of the unborn our political leaders have repeatedly struck down amendments to the health care reform bill which would limit or prevent federal funding of abortions. The National Right to Life Committee (nrlc.org) reports that "In four congressional committees, pro-abortion Democratic committee chairmen and majorities, allied with the White House, rejected amendments to keep elective abortion out of the ‘public plan’ and to prevent federal subsidies from going to private plans that cover elective abortion."
The bills before congress fail to meet the nonnegotiable obligation to protect the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. Rather than protect our children who have a basic right to health care – which certainly includes the right to life – Congress has, time and again, insisted on advancing the morally bankrupt legalized "right" to abortion, which is the intentional killing of our precious, innocent children. Further, with pernicious aspirations to expand their attack on life, these same politicians intend to force Americans to pay for the barbaric deeds of abortion.
We hear statements from politicians who insist that the "Hyde Amendment" law already prohibits federal funding of abortions; therefore there is no need to be concerned whether federal funding of abortions would occur in the proposed "public option" plan. However, under HR 3200, private plans that cover elective abortions would be federally subsidized. Even the Associated Press reported on August 5, 2009, that the Hyde Amendment "applies the [abortion] restrictions to Medicaid . . . [But] The health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions." FactCheck.org also confirmed the claim that HR 3200 would authorize the government plan to cover elective abortions (see factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating). The Hyde Amendment will not prevent federal funding of abortions in the proposed "public option" plan.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), notes that language on page 110 of the new bill (H.R. 3962) explicitly authorizes the "public health insurance option" to pay for all elective abortions. Johnson further noted that "The public plan will be a federal agency program, and all funds spent by the agency are federal funds." Addressing the deceitful tactics employed by pro-abortion politicians, Johnson said, "Prominent Democrats who have claimed that the federal government could pay for abortion with 'private' funds have been engaged in a big snow job -- and in swallowing such a contrived, implausible claim, many journalists have been all too gullible."
Let’s be clear: pro-abortion politicians, with obdurate persistence, are committed to funding abortions with tax-payer dollars; they are aligned with Planned Parenthood, an abortion institution that is vehemently opposed to any restrictions limiting the intentional killing of the unborn; and they have consistently, throughout their terms in office, voted against protecting the lives of our young brethren. These public officials have every intent to publicly fund the death of God’s newly created. The proposed "public option" health care plan is the means these politicians will use in order to execute their agenda.
And what is this agenda? It is one which seeks to establish a new global ethic; one where the most heinous crimes imaginable are legal and publicly funded; one where killing innocent persons is elevated to a "right" which is, according to the adopted ideologies of its adherents, inviolable. It is a non-ethic ethic; one where freedom of an evil 'choice' trumps the fundamental first right to life. It's blatant, open immorality that, through the use of clever rhetoric and propaganda, is falsely characterized as "compassion", "freedom", and "women’s reproductive care".
It is important to mention that there are some admirable members of Congress such as Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) who are attempting to protect ...
Tom Gray, I agree, conservatives should stop blaming women for abortion. I don't believe abortion is right, but if we're going to make it illegal, we have a duty to provide the average mother-to-be with the funds to carry her child to term. Enough of these "greedy, self-absorbed, baby-killing mothers" accusations from the right.
Bulbajer | 11/14/2009
I was raised a Catholic and they have no right involving themselves in the Health Care Bill. This is a healthcare Bill not an abortion BIll. I am no longer going to the Catholic Church.
Mary Alexander | 11/14/2009
Opposing a public health option IS pro-abortion on a far greater magnitude than supporting a public health option that might fund some abortions.
The sheer fiscal impediment of childbirth without insurance leads many if not most with unplanned pregnancies to choose abortion even if they would rather give the child up for adoption or start a family. When my mother gave birth to me, my parents were barely able to afford the $20,000+ bills associated with a normal pregancy (and that was in the 80s, i don't know what it costs now). When faced with these costs, many young married couples who would wish to start a family do not, and many people who would much rather choose to continue their pregnancy choose abortion over poverty.
Anti-public health is anti-family, anti-life, and pro-abortion.
Not only would a public health option make it much easier for many to pay for the medical costs associated with families, it would in fact be providing a indirect financial incentive to choose birth over abortion.
If a public health bill only pays for abortion in the case of medical necessity, then it will be far cheaper for people to continue a pregnancy with the public option taking on their associated costs than for them to pay for an abortion out of pocket.
Under a public option which does not pay for abortion, if someone chooses abortion, they are losing 800 or more dollars. If they continue their pregnancy and those medical costs are fully covered, they lose nothing.
Mandated private insurance, as the Republicans and so called pro-lifers would have us adopt, actually encourages abortions, since not only do many private insurers provide abortion coverage, it is to their fiscal advantage that you choose it.
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, antisocial behavior such as "spamming" and "trolling," or other inappropriate comments or material will not be posted on Catholic Online. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our terms of service. While Catholic Online invites robust discussion, we maintain the right to not print material that is patently false in its claims concerning the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, overtly anti-Catholic or which, in the opinion of the moderator, are intended to mislead readers as to what the Catholic Church teaches. Comments DO NOT necessarily reflect the opinion or views of Catholic Online.