Thursday, March 11, 2010

Stupak: I Don't Buy Promises for Later Abortion-Funding 'Fix' to Health Bill

Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan told the Associated Press this week that he was "more optimistic than I was a week ago" about including an abortion-funding ban in health care reform - sparking speculation by some that his new-found optimism was merely a prelude to his “caving in” or compromising on the issue.

But the lawmaker has clarified that he does not intend to back down on his standard for the language, nor would he be satisfied if that language came in a later "fix" bill, after the Senate bill makes it to the President's desk.

In response to those who suggested that Stupak might have been considering throwing in the towel on abortion funding, the congressman told The Weekly Standard Tuesday, "Obviously they don’t know me."

"If I didn’t" cave in November, he said, "why would I do it now after all the crap I’ve been through?"

Stupak asserted that "there's no such thing as a compromise" on the abortion-funding language in the bills. Stupak, the author of the Hyde-amendment restriction on abortion funding in the House health care bill, has repeatedly confirmed that he and a cadre of about a dozen pro-life Democrats would vote down the Senate health bill if it did not include the same language.

Must -See Video: Democrats reveal facts about Obamacare

Video: Urge Rep. Kildee to Stand Strong Against Senate Bill

From Catholic Vote Action, a radio ad in Saginaw and Flint that encourages Rep. Dale Kildee, D-MI, to ppose the pro-abortion Senate healthcare bill:

Related Information:

Breaking Exclusive: Rep. Dale Kildee *not* a vote for pro-abortion Senate language

Our radio ad urges Rep. Kildee to stand strong against the Senate pro-abortion bill

It's Time to Get Real About Obama-Care

Filling up my email inbox are huge numbers of requests from various pro-life organizations to sign petitions which demand removal of abortion from health care.

Very briefly, this is the explanation for an inability to sign on to most of these.

The premise from so many groups is that the problem of the Democrat health care plans will be solved with language removing abortion funding from the bill.

Many people incorrectly assume that removing funding will remove the abortion mandate.  This is not so.  Mothers will be coerced to abort unborn babies with untoward fetal diagnoses in any government run system, because there will be the threat of no health coverage for such kids.  Health care professionals will still be coerced to participate in this and other unethical activity. This is the reality in other socialized medicine systems which lack funding for the care of premature infants, and those with significant congenital disabilities.

Denial of care at other points in development, with respect to early diagnosis using imaging, severe illnesses, and terminal illness, is also a sad reality in other government run health care systems, as well as the one planned for America.

Finally there is the problem of turning over our health care autonomy to an entity which is known to be corrupt.  This is not a smart move.  The control over our health care will be used by the federal government to control other aspects of our lives, including expression of religious beliefs.

Sorry to the pro-life liberals, this pharmacist (whose insights stem from health care experience),  is ethically constrained from signing on to any aspect of the killer-government controlled health care.

~Karen L. Brauer MS, RPh is president of Pharmacists for Life International, the most fully pro-life pharmacists' organization.  Find our politically incorrect site at, and KB's personal blog at Pharmacists for Life International truly makes no profit, and all officers and staff are volunteers. 

Via Christian Newswire.

Video: Bishop Cordileone on Health Care

This was discussed on Catholic Connection this morning.  The good Bishop provides much-needed clarity on the Catholic position.

Democrats May Use Slaughter Rule to Pass Pro-Abortion Health Care Without Vote

As Democratic leaders in Congress plot their next move on how to get the pro-abortion Senate health care bill through the House, a new strategy has developed apart from the reconciliation plan that has pro-life advocates concerned they could pass the bill without taking a vote on it.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter has developed an idea she has not yet presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi but is one that received considerable attention from political observers yesterday.

When the House considers any legislation on the floor, it first adopts a Rule for debate that sets the parameters for debate, amendments and other procedures.

The problem Democrats have in the House is that pro-life Democrats are joining with Republicans to hold up the Senate bill because it contains massive abortion funding and other pro-abortion problems.

To get around that, Slaughter has mentioned proposing a Rule that would "deem" the Senate bill having already passed the House without an actual vote by members of the House.

The Rule would apply to the reconciliation package that makes the changes Democrats need to secure enough votes.

Under the Slaughter Rule, a majority would be needed to approve it and the idea behind adopting it is to give Democrats in tough re-election campaigns the ability to say they didn't vote for what is an unpopular pro-abortion health care bill. Instead, they can say they merely voted on a procedural rule.