Pro-Life Dems rightly balk at abortion in healthcare bill

Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), are showing backbone by throwing down the gauntlet over abortion government funding in healthcare legislation. Instead of lining up lockstep behind the pro-abortion House leader, reports the Associated Press in a news story today, Stupak and his pro-life colleagues are gearing up to "block action on the larger health overhaul bill unless he's allowed to offer a stand-alone amendment during floor debate to include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill."

Why all the fuss about the Hyde amendment? After all, the President insists that the healthcare legislation won't allow government funding of abortion, and his White House spokesman has reiterated that claim, hiding behind the Hyde amendment as proof.

My friend Douglas Johnson and the National Right to Life Committee lay out the reasons in a letter to Congress:

H.R. 3200 would create (1) a nationwide insurance program run directly by the federal government, “the public plan,” and (2) an “affordability credit” program that would subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans.  None of the funds that would be spent by the public plan, and none of the funds that would be spent by the premium subsidy program, would be appropriated through the annual appropriations bills (as the Congressional Research Service has confirmed), and therefore, none of these funds will be covered by the Hyde Amendment or any other current law that restricts government subsidies for abortion.  The new government programs created by H.R. 3200 will cover elective abortion, unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is added to the bill to prevent this outcome. 

Stupak and his colleagues have seen through the tricky language in this bill that attempts to obfuscate government abortion subsidies through accounting screens. The bottom line is that unless Hyde amendment language is voted into the bill through an amendment, an abortionist will suddenly be able to bill the federal government for an abortion and get a government check drawn from the U.S. Treasury.
That's a radical departure from U.S. policy regarding public funding of abortion, and that's worth speaking out about. Tell your Congressional leaders you won't stand for it.

Call your senator today on healthcare legislation

Several pro-life organizations have compiled lists of senators believed to be open to persuasion to vote against current healthcare legislation before the Senate that threatens pro-life principles. Some of these senators may not be pro-life but have concerns about the financial impact.
All senators should understand that any threat to pro-life healthcare professionals is ultimately a threat to millions of patients who depend on these professionals for care. (Visit Freedom2Care to learn more.)
Two examples of pro-life lists--a map and a list of senators identified by a number of pro-life groups--are provided below.
Now is the time to contact your senators and tell them to vote against any healthcare bill that:

1. Involves the government in funding and mandating abortion.
2. Threatens conscience protections.
3. Increases government interference in the physician-patient relationship.

Senator Call List

1. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) - 202-224-5623
2. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) - 202-224-3004
3. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) - 202-224-5824
4. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) - 202-224-2353
5. Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) - 202-224-4041
6. Jon Tester (D-Montana) - 202-224-2644
7. Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) - 202-224-4843
8. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) - 202-224-5852
9. Mark Warner (D-Virginia) - 202-224-2023
10. Jim Webb (D-Virginia) - 202-224-4024
11. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) - 202-224-6551 

For any other senators, see http://www.senate.gov/. 

Evasive lawmaking

Addressing the realization that any supposed benefits from healthcare overhaul legislation would take three years to materialize, the White House cautions, "It's very important to get the execution right.” Yet the same political party that promised transparency and now calls for patience from patients is balking at requests for healthcare bills to be posted online at least three days before legislators vote on it.

Wouldn’t “getting the execution right” begin with reading the bill to make sure the plan for the execution is right?

The healthcare “reform” process has been marked by complication (a thousand-page bill creating a massive network of new government bureaucracy), obfuscation (accounting schemes to hide federal funding of abortion), and hypocrisy (promising conscience protections while voting down conscience-protecting amendments).

Meaningful healthcare reform may well hinge on first reforming the equivocating conduct of Congress and evasive lawmaking.

Why healthcare access hinges on civil liberties

In a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post, Louisiana Republican governor Bobby Jindal focuses exclusively on financial solutions such as refundable tax credits and litigation reform. In actual practice, however, civil liberties protections may offer the greatest health benefit to the poor.
Each year in the U.S., Catholic hospitals care for one in six patients, and one in eight hospitals affiliates with the Catholic Church. With a sizeable network of Protestant hospitals and thousands of faith-based clinics also serving the poor, millions of Americans—especially in medically underserved areas--depend on faith-based healthcare.
In a recent national survey, 95 percent of faith-based physicians said they would “rather stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience."
While Congressional committees deep-six conscience rights amendments and the President trashes the federal conscience-protecting regulation, healthcare for the poor may well be riding on the civil liberties of the faith-based professionals and institutions who serve them.

Do the Math: What Happens when Bureaucrats Counsel Patients?

The Church Report, published my Op-Ed today on healthcare, bureaucrats and end-of-life "counseling":