Recently in Pro-life Category

The run-up to debate in the Senate on health care and abortion is already producing some interesting comments.  The Senate bill offered by Senate Majority Leader Reid does not include any pro-life language like that of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment which was approved by the House.  In fact, the Reid bill mandates federally subsidized abortion and actually requires a monthly abortion fee.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) says he will offer a pro-life amendment to the Senate bill with language very similar to the House-passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment.  And, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), who's led the charge to remove abortion funding from health care, says he has the votes necessary to block passage if the Senate version does not include pro-life language.

The full court press is on to discredit the pro-life language in the House-passed bill.  Some in the legal community are questioning the constitutionality of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and one of our senior attorneys has produced a sound rebuttal to those flawed arguments.

There's nothing wrong with the Catholic Church - or other churches - addressing the issue of abortion.  As you know, this country has a rich and welcomed history of turning to churches and houses of worship during the debate of the great moral issues of the day.  Let's not forget the calls to action - to end slavery - and the powerful voices raised during the civil rights movement. 

Consider the call to action from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta in 1965.  These were his words: "Legislation, executive orders, or judicial decrees will have to control the external effects of bad internal attitudes. Therefore, if we are to realize the American dream, we must continue to work through legislation. So it is necessary for Congress to pass meaningful legislation."

That's exactly what the Catholic Church did with its strong support of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion in health care.  The Catholic Church should be congratulated, not criticized, for standing-up for the life of the unborn.  We heard from nearly 170,000 Americans - including many Catholics to be sure - who wanted a guarantee that the House health bill would prohibit the use of federal funds for abortions.

Barry, would you have criticized the Catholic Church if it had OPPOSED the Stupak/Pitts Amendment and it failed to clear the House?

The bill  introduced to reform health care by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) has splintered the Democrats and so far has no support among Republicans.  As reported earlier, Senators Grassley and Enzi, in fact, have expressed concerns about the abortion provisions. 

Based on our initial reading, we too have concerns with the abortion provisions in this bill.

First, with regards to a minimum benefits package, p. 25 of the bill states that abortion "cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted."  We are concerned that, if the Hyde Amendment is scrapped by the pro-abortion Congress, then abortion on demand could be mandated as a minimum benefit.  Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has been added each year to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriations bill.  The amendment prevents federal funding of abortion, except in limited circumstances.  However, Congress could, at some point, fail to add the Hyde Amendment to the HHS appropriations bill, thus eliminating its protections.

Barry, even as another health care plan is being introduced into Congress, there's a continuing - and a very real - concern about the issue of abortion.

Senators Michael Enzi of Wyoming and Charles Grassley of Iowa have expressed their concern to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus who is offering his own health care measure.  Senators Enzi and Grassley are correctly concerned about the lack of language in the bill.

According to the New York Times report:

Mr. Enzi and Mr. Grassley also told Mr. Baucus that health legislation must include language affirmatively prohibiting the use of federal money to pay for abortion. The restriction, they said, should apply to any subsidies that help low-income people buy insurance. In addition, they said, health plans should not be obliged to provide abortion. Thus, they said, the bill should "include a conscience clause to protect entities from being required to contract with abortion providers."

Barry, unfortunately President Obama squandered a prime-time audience and a Congressional address to do very little to move the ball forward regarding efforts to reform our health care system. 

President Obama is losing support with the American people on this issue.  And, after his address I can see why.

In fact, I would argue that the President drew more lines in the sand - dividing Americans - especially pro-life Americans who don't want abortion services mandated as part of some kind of health care 'benefit.'