FAQ on Abortion and Healthcare

Check out this very helpful post from Matthew Lee Anderson over at First Thoughts. Anderson addresses such questions as:

• Does the Senate bill cover abortions?
• Is this bill covered by the Hyde Amendment?
• Did Bart Stupack get anything for supporting the bill?
• Does the Executive Order solve the problem of tax payer funded abortion?

And speaking of abortion, it’s fitting that in the final hours, the outcome of the vote hinged on the issue. While many saw abortion as tangentially related to the health care debate, in reality the dispute is central to it, and a harbinger of things to come.

The expansion of government’s role in health care will elevate the importance of social issues and trigger contentious battles in the future over the government’s role in personal decisions. Given that abortion is a legal procedure in a free market, government cannot restrict private policies from covering it. But once ostensibly private policies are regulated by the federal government and subsidized with tax dollars, Washington has a say in the matter.

While the year-long debate over whether this particular legislation should pass this particular Congress has just ended, the broader debate over the future of America’s health care system has only begun.
- Phillip Klein

How to sell out the pro-life cause...

The following is Planned Parenthood's reaction to Bart Stupak's (D-MI) decision to vote "yes" on on the Senate's health care bill:

“While we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, we are grateful that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.”

Planned Parenthood knows full well what Mr. Stupack apparently does not. The Senate's bill will not ultimately protect us from paying for abortions.

From National Right to Life Committee:

The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.

From Andrew McCarthy:

That EOs can be rescinded at the president’s whim is of course true. This particular EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impound funds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can’t use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause.

It is a sad day indeed.

Hang in there Representative Stupak

The New York Times has interviewed Representative Bark Stupak (D-MI) who has taken a courageous stand against the abortion language in the current health care bill. As a result Mr. Stupak has been called "the most hated man in Washington."

Mr. Stupak insists that the final bill include his terms, which he says merely reflect current law. If he prevails, he will have won an audacious, counterintuitive victory, forcing a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass a measure that will be hailed as an anti-abortion triumph. If party members do not accept his terms — and many vow they will not — Mr. Stupak is prepared to block passage of the health care overhaul.

“It’s not the end of the world if it goes down,” he said over dinner. He did not sound downbeat about the prospect of being blamed for blocking the long-sought goal of President Obama and a chain of presidents and legislators before him. “Then you get the message,” he continued. “Fix the abortion language and bring the bill back.”

Senate Rejects Abortion Amendment

From Shailagh Murray at The Washington Post:

The Senate narrowly rejected an amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in the pending health-care bill, leaving in question whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 60 votes needed to move the bill toward final passage.

The measure, which failed 54-45, addressed the scope of restrictions on coverage of abortion services for people who receive subsidies to buy insurance. The outcome was expected, but could cost the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who has threatened to filibuster the $848 billion bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.

Reid told reporters earlier Tuesday afternoon he would consider other language to allay Nelson's concerns. "If in fact he doesn't succeed here, we'll try something else," Reid said.

The vote came amid intense final negotiations on the bill, as Reid aims to wrap up debate on amendments and begin a long procedural stand-off with Republicans -- possibly extending 10 days -- before the bill can come to a final vote before Christmas.

Nelson also is participating in talks to establish an alternative to the public insurance option, and said he would continue to negotiate with Reid and his colleagues on the overall bill. "People are talking," he said before the abortion vote. "And that's usually a good thing."

Will we be forced to pay for abortions?

From Erica Werner of the Associated Press:

"Our goal is to maintain essentially Hyde-like protections that prevent federal funds from being used to pay for and subsidize abortion," [Bob] Casey's communications director Larry Smar said Wednesday, referring to the existing law on abortion, though nothing had been finalized.

Efforts to find such a common ground failed in the House.

Women's rights groups were caught off-guard by the provision that passed the House and are now vowing to keep similar language out of the Senate bill. Hundreds of activists organized by Planned Parenthood and other groups rallied Wednesday, holding signs reading "Listen up senators: Women's health is not negotiable."

Several House Democrats spoke, vowing to oppose final passage of any health bill with the tough abortion restrictions already approved by the House. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., called it "a devil's bargain" that she couldn't accept...

Abortion opponents say Reid's bill circumvents Hyde. For example, they say that any funds a government insurance plan would use to pay for abortion would be federal funds by definition -- even if the money comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said after addressing the crowd that she didn't think Nelson had the votes to prevail, though she stopped short of saying she'd oppose the overall legislation if it included Nelson's language. Reid controls 60 votes, the exact number needed to advance legislation in the 100-member Senate, so he has no room for error.

Boxer told activists at the rally that the anti-abortion amendment adopted by the House amounted to "the biggest rollback in a woman's right to choose in three decades."

Read the entire article HERE.

Clear Thinking on Health Care

Justin Taylor has a very helpful post dealing with the current health care debate:

Lots of people are saying that the best piece on health care is now this 10,000+ word essay by David Goldhill entitled How American Health Care Killed My Father, published in the September 2009 issue of The Atlantic. I don't know anything about Goldhill except that he is a Democrat and a business executive. But the piece will definitely inform you and cause much food for thought. Here's The Atlantic's summary:
After the needless death of his father, the author, a business executive, began a personal exploration of a health-care industry that for years has delivered poor service and irregular quality at astonishingly high cost. It is a system, he argues,
that is not worth preserving in anything like its current form. And the health-care reform now being contemplated will not fix it. Here’s a radical solution to an agonizing problem.

Here is how David Brooks opens his op-ed in today's NYT:
If I were magically given an hour to help Barack Obama prepare for his health care speech next week, the first thing I’d do is ask him to read David Goldhill’s essay, “How American Health Care Killed My Father,” in the current issue of The Atlantic.

Joe Carter at First Things:
The forthcoming issue of the Atlantic includes one of the most sensible and pragmatic articles on the health care debate you’re likely to ever read.

John Schwenkler , who says this may be the best piece he's ever read on the issue and that it's "absolutely worth reading carefully and in its entirety," tries to identify the top 10 points in the 10,000+ word piece:
1. We treat “health insurance” and “health care” as synonymous, but they shouldn’t be.
2. There is a massive moral hazard problem.
3. We’re the only ones who can pay.
4. Governments can’t do enough [to] reduce costs.
5. Regulation limits competitiveness.
6. Medical providers work to serve the people who pay them, not the people in their care.
7. The costs of medical technologies are vastly inflated.
8. The present push for “comprehensive” reform will do nothing to solve the underlying problems.
9. The proper response is a shift toward consumer-driven care, with subsidies for the poor and a single program of truly catastrophic insurance available to all.
10. We spend too much money on health care.

Read Schwenkler's post for a summary of each of these points.

Health Care Reform and Abortion

One of the concerns that have been expressed by those of us opposed to abortion is whether or not abortions would be funded under government provided health care coverage. This of course would mean that tax payers would be forced to pay for abortions.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs. The dispute could come to a head with House and Senate floor votes on abortion this fall, a prospect that many lawmakers would like to avoid.

Read the entire article HERE.

Christians and Health Care Reform

Check out this excellent discussion on the Al Mohler Radio Program on the topic of how Christians ought to think about health care reform.

Healthcare is in the media today, and at the top of the President’s domestic policy agenda. Is it wise for the government to provide healthcare for everyone? Are there limits to what should be provided? Many in Washington would like to see public money support abortions for those who can’t afford them. Christians cannot support any program that doesn’t protect the unborn. Listen as Dr. Moore discusses the dangers of nationalized healthcare with two guests, Congressman Gene Taylor (D-Miss) and Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life of America.