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

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. 

Read the entire article here.

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

Planned Parenthood says U.S. bishops have ‘hijacked’ health care reform

And my response? It's about time that our Bishops spoke up to support life and reinforce Catholic teachings. And by the way, their campaign was directed at Catholics, who are already obligated to be pro-life.

Planned Parenthood has condemned the addition of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the U.S. House’s proposed health care reform legislation, saying it would undermine private health plans that cover abortion. One pro-life leader said the criticism, which characterized pro-lifers as hijackers, was an ‘over the top’ attempt at self-promotion.

Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, claimed in a Nov. 7 statement that the Stupak Amendment to Congress’ proposed health care bill has further reach than the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding for most abortions.

She also charged that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and “anti-choice opponents” have been able to “hijack” health care reform in their “dedicated attempt” to ban all legal abortion. Richards characterized the USCCB as a hijacker twice in her 700-word statement.


story here

cross-posted from A Catholc View

Obama as Solomon

I must admit it is nice to hear the President of Planned Parenthood complain about the Bishops. That finally the Bishops are seen by them as the kids in Scooby Doo - "Those meddling Bishops." Plus the other voices angry at the Bishops for actually proclaiming the truth and defending the unborn.

Now I think the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is mostly political theatre since it can be done away with in reconciliation with the Senate bill or plenty of other political ploys. But still the vote was important and at every step of the way we must work to defend life, even if our efforts might be done away with at a later time. We can never stop doing what is right. Though the reaction is rather strange. Anger at the amendment of the bill that was not suppose to fund abortion in it any way. The normal two faces of politicians were once again asserting two things 1) This bill does not fund abortion 2) The Amendment goes to far in not allowing funding of abortion.

It is not surprising that the defenders of the Culture of Death are upset by any restriction on abortion in the health care plan. So of course the Democratic Party must bow to their masters and respond.

President Obama said today that Congress needs to change abortion-related language in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives this weekend.

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "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."

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions, the president said, "There are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."... [reference]

What? Oh wait the translation says "I oppose the Stupak-Pitts amendment because it does exactly what I said I wanted." Yes the President that promised the Pope to reduce abortions and said "his" health care bill would not fund abortions is beholden to his masters at Planned Parenthood and NARAL to act.

Obama told... Tapper that he was confident that the final legislation will ensure that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed."

This is a step down for the President to go from messiah to Solomon. Sorry you can not both please God and Satan and you cannot please both sides of the abortion debate. Though there is a parallel with Solomon. Solomon said he would split the baby in two. In this debate there is one side that has no problem with splitting the baby in two or for that matter a hundred pieces. And there is a side who would protect the baby. Once again we know which side is telling the truth.