Thursday, November 12, 2009

OBAMA BETRAYS THE BISHOPS


Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Obama’s position on abortion restrictions in the health care bill:

On September 30, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to the U.S. Senate saying, “So far, the health reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met President Obama’s challenge of barring use of federal dollars for abortion.”

We now know that President Obama—who is lobbying to excise the abortion restrictions that the bishops wanted—has betrayed the bishops. Here is how New York Times reporter Robert Pear put it today: “President Obama suggested Monday that he was not comfortable with abortion restrictions inserted into the House version of major health care legislation, and he prodded Congress to revise them.” Although Obama spoke out of both sides of his mouth in his ABC News interview, Pear’s statement is an accurate reflection of the president’s position.

The manly thing for the president to do would be to state the obvious: his love for abortion rights brooks (tolerates) no compromise. But he won’t do so, choosing instead to play the same old shell game he’s been playing all along. And he is not alone. For months, we have been told that the bill does not cover funds for abortion, yet if that were true, there would have been no need for the Stupak amendment, and no resistance to it.

This has been a great moment for the bishops, and for Catholics generally, but the fight is not over. It’s important that those on both sides know exactly who the players are on each team.

Former Pro-Abortion Leaders Threaten Democratic Party Revolt Over Stupak Amdt

This is pretty ironic. The House could only pass Obamacare because it had the Stupak amendment. But the Senate may only be able to pass it if the Stupak amendment is removed. Those pro-aborts are hell-bent on continuing to abort (kill) babies.


Two former leaders of major pro-abortion organizations write in an opinion column in the New York Times today that the Democratic Party could face an internal revolt from abortion advocates upset that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and party leaders in the House allowed a vote on the Stupak amendment.

As LifeNews.com reported, the House approved the government-run health care bill Saturday night but not before voting for the Stupak amendment to stop the massive abortion funding in it.

The vote has produced tremendous fallout among abortion advocates who have demanded a meeting with President Barack Obama to discuss where to go from here and a letter to Pelosi threatening to vote against the final bill if Stupak is not removed.

story here

cross-posted from A Catholic View

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Pelosi Says Obamacare Will Be Our "Christmas Present"

Jill Stanek: What health-care 'status quo' means to pro-aborts


The numbers don't jibe.

Time magazine reported July 8:

Nearly 90% of insurers cover abortion procedures, according to a 2002 survey by the Guttmacher Institute....

While U.S. News & World Report reported July 23:

[A] Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 46% of insured workers had coverage for abortions.

But Dept. of Health & Human Services secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee on April 9:

Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances....

And the New York Times reported Nov. 8:

A 2003 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 13% of abortions were billed directly to insurance companies.

What gives?

It is important to get to the bottom of those discrepant statistics, because pro-aborts are hinging their opposition to the Stupak/Pitts pro-life amendment in the House healthcare bill on one of them - which is false....
Continue reading her column at WorldNetDaily.com.

The Human Cost of Government Health Care

 This is the true story of Canadian Lin Gilbert, diagnosed with debilitating back pain, ignored for over 2 years, and then mercifully helped by a heroic doctor. If ObamaCare passes, could Lin's story be yours?



H/T: Instapundit

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Case of the Missing Moral Authority


By Judie Brown

These past few days of haggling and heckling over H.R. 3962, the Pelosi version of  Obama-style  “health care reform,” have left me with a rather sick feeling. What I have learned about the levers of power and how corrupting they can be, even to those in positions of moral leadership such as the Catholic bishops of this nation, is a sobering lesson indeed.

I first surmised that something was amiss when Justin Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, sent a letter on Saturday, November 7 to each member of the U.S. House of Representatives. 

The letter urged the representatives to vote in favor of the “Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment,” commonly referred to as the Stupak Amendment. The USCCB asserted that this amendment would provide consistent protection for the rights of conscience and maintain the current law on abortion funding. It should be noted that, tragically, current law still allows taxpayer funding of abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.

The letter further states,
The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will not affect coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds. Thus far, H.R. 3962 does not meet President Obama’s commitment of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws.
In the days following the passage of the Stupak Amendment, which led directly to the passage of the Pelosi bill, it has been argued that the amendment’s passage is a victory for pro-life Americans. We are sorry to have to throw cold water on the celebration, but frankly, this is false, for the following reasons.

First, there is the undeniable fact that whatever the seriously deficient Stupak Amendment may or may not do, its language could fall out of any bill ultimately voted on in President Obama’s quest to pass a “health care reform” bill. Second, the Stupak Amendment only addresses abortion funding (and only partially at that).

The Pelosi bill (H.R. 3962) includes the following provisions:

• Expanded access to and funding of abortifacient contraception  (section 1714)

• Federal funding of Planned Parenthood-style permissive sex education programs “to prevent teen pregnancy” (section 2526), similar to that stipulated in the Senate version of Obamacare

• Deceptive definitions that, in fact, allow euthanasia through withholding or withdrawing “medical treatment or medical care” and withholding or withdrawing of  “nutrition or hydration” (section 240)
• Vaguely worded references to conscience rights and only partial protection of the same (sections 258 and 259)
• Language that forces a “participating health benefits plan” to not “discriminate” against any facilities that “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” (section 304)
Of course, the first two provisions would result in massive new federal subsidies for organizations such as Planned Parenthood, which peddle contraceptives, abortion and sexual promiscuity, especially to our youth.

The bottom line is that the intent to restore full protection of the human person and his inalienable right to life does not appear to be high on the USCCB’s list of priorities. Instead, it appears content with maintaining the sordid, deadly status quo. This leads one to presume that the USCCB wants mandatory health care coverage for one and all more than it desires the protection of all vulnerable human beings’ right to life. 


Obama Wants to Weaken Abortion Funding Ban in Health Care Reform Legislation

Once again, here is Obama speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In the video below, you'll hear him state that no federal funds will be used to pay for abortion. And now he hasn't even gotten Obamacare through the Senate, and he is already opposing restrictions on funding abortions.

In an interview on Monday, President Barack Obama refused to support an amendment in the health care bill that would ban taxpayer funding of abortions. Obama said he didn't want to change the "status quo" on abortion and added there is "more work to do" on the bill.

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama told ABC News. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."

Obama appeared to side with abortion advocates who claim the Stupak amendment in the health care bill somehow changes the current status quo on government abortion funding -- which, under the Hyde amendment and other pro-life provisions is mostly banned.

“There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo” on abortion, Obama added. “And that’s the goal.”



story here