President Barack Obama says he will veto the Protect Life Act if it reaches his desk.
The measure would amend ObamaCare to reflect the 45-year-old Hyde Amendment which prohibits taxpayer dollars being spent on any health plan that includes elective abortions.
The Protect Life Act, scheduled to be debated in the House of Representatives Thursday, “retains Hyde’s exception for abortions performed due to the child’s conception in rape or incest or to save the mother’s life.
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. It is not a permanent law, rather a “rider” that has been routinely attached to annual appropriation legislation since 1976. It primarily affects Medicaid. It is named for its chief sponsor, late Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).
The Protect Life Act confirms that the Hyde Amendment applies to ObamaCare and “also makes clear that no health insurance carrier may be forced to provide coverage of abortion in any of its health plans,” reports Kathleen Gilbert at LifeSiteNews. It also ”strengthens the conscience rights of health care workers and institutions to reject abortion training, procedures, or referrals.”
Obama fought last year to keep Hyde Amendment language out of the health care bill and says he “strongly opposes” the Act because it “intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care.” claiming the health care bill already preserves federal policy against tax funding for abortion.
“Pro-life leaders, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, contend that the bill is critical for preserving the status quo on abortion and conscience rights in the face of a health reform that promises to drastically alter the landscape of the abortion battle in America,” wrote Gilbert. ObamaCare ”has already led to a major expansion of the abortion industry: health officials announced this summer that virtually every private insurer, including sectarian institutions, would soon be forced to offer free contraception, abortifacient birth control, and sterilization in its health plans as part of an essential ‘preventive care’ package.”
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
posted October 13, 2011 at 10:04 pm
“The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.”
posted October 14, 2011 at 3:26 pm
And these conscience rights allow a religious based hospital to REFUSE to treat a woman whose life is endangered by a pregnancy! So, the woman’s life is worth nothing? And this is a real situation – my sister had an ectopic pregnancy. The fetus had to be removed to save her life!
This Act just shows that that money is more important than life. It’s horrifying to know that I, as a person, am not worth anything.
posted October 18, 2011 at 8:19 am
Desert Lady read the law again it says an abortion can be granted if the women’s life is endangered. If the hospital refused its service I’m sure that is not the only hospital in the state.
posted October 20, 2011 at 12:05 am
I do not understand why a man wants to fight so hard for something he has never experienced. But with next year being a year to vote,i guess he has to have a hidden agenda as well. But the blood of these babies will be on his hands, and then he too can dance with his virgins
posted November 1, 2011 at 8:43 am
” And he too can dance with his virgins” What the heck does that mean? Unless you think he is a muslum. Oh well i got a bridge to be sold too.
posted November 18, 2011 at 8:21 pm
The President knows that it is not his place or that of government to tell a woman what to do with her body!! The decision to carry a pregnancy is between a woman and her doctor (and a husband/boyfriend if applicable) but ultimately the woman’s decision.