WASHINGTON – Most pro-life groups roundly criticized pro-life Democrats for switching to support passage of a health-care bill that may provide taxpayer support for elective abortions.
Final passage of the massive health-care overhaul, 219-212, came down to the support of a handful of pro-life Democrats, who had long opposed it over concerns that it would fund elective abortions. Their concerns were met, they said, by President Obama promising an executive order to prohibit the use of public funds for abortion.
“No one ever thought President Obama would sign an executive order like this,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life.
However, every other leading pro-life group rejected the executive order because it would not change the underlying legislation and would not prevent courts from requiring the new federal program to provide abortion coverage as a basic health-care benefit.
“Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. “According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding.”
The historic precedent for the current legislation that pro-life groups cite is the requirement by federal courts that Medicaid fund abortions as a basic health requirement after abortion was legalized in 1973. Those court decisions resulted in Medicaid funding over 300,000 abortions annually until the so-called Hyde Amendment was enacted in 1976 and statutorily barred federal taxpayer funding for elective abortions until the present.
“The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation,” Doerflinger noted.
Day said her group was still analyzing the executive order banning federal taxpayer funding for elective abortions but was “hopeful” that it would survive court challenges by abortion advocates.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who led a group of pro-life Democrats, hailed the agreement as a victory for pro-life advocates.
“It is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortions,” said Stupak, in a brief House floor speech after the vote.
Stupak dismissed as “ridiculous” a Republican effort to send the bill back to the committee level explicitly to address the lack of a provision barring federal funds for abortion that was long advocated by Stupak.
Executive Order Can’t Amend Bill
Most pro-life groups said their analysis of the use of an executive order was clear enough to condemn the last-minute deal the president struck with Stupak.
“This deal to pass the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade is a tragedy for America,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action. “We believe that Mr. Stupak’s choice to succumb to the intense pressure of the last week has resulted in his endorsement of a charade that does not even begin to address the anti-life provisions in this legislation.”
The National Right to Life Committee issued a statement that said the executive order promised by President Obama was “issued for political effect.”
“The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says,” said the statement.
The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund condemned the bill for its abortion provisions and Stupak, in particular, for his last-minute and critical support of it. The group was planning to honor Stupak for leading pro-life efforts in the health-care battle at its annual Campaign for Life Gala this week but dropped that recognition after his move to support the bill.
“Let me be clear: Any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this health-care bill, can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life,’” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the fund.
She promised that her group would work to defeat members of Congress who supported the health-care overhaul.
The Stupak deal also drew objections by pro-abortion groups because it may restrict federal funding of abortions in the short term, similar to the legislative ban enacted by the Hyde Amendment.
“Today’s action is a stark reminder of why we must repeal this unfair and insulting policy,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a written statement.
The abortion-funding concern was also on the minds of thousands of opponents of the health-care overhaul who gathered outside of the Capitol building as the House of Representatives voted.
The abortion-funding language “goes against 30 years of tradition,” said Matt Rixon, who drove from Tampa, Fla., to Washington with his family to voice opposition to the bill. “We don’t want our tax dollars to fund abortion.”
Even some among a smaller number of health-bill supporters gathered outside the Capitol building voiced concerns that taxpayer money may be used to fund elective abortions.
“I can see where people would have a problem paying for controversial things like that,” said Joe Crosby, a Washington, D.C., resident, who described himself as pro-choice.
President Obama was expected to sign the measure into law within a couple days of the House vote. The House also approved a so-called reconciliation measure to change some provisions of the bill unrelated to abortion and sent it to the Senate where it is also expected to face a contentious vote.
Rich Daly writes from Washington, D.C.
Comments
Post a Comment
“The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order.”
Oh, really? It has become common for presidents to issue “signing statements” to limit or alter the text of a bill. President George W. Bush issued many such statements, as he did in the case of the anti-torture law. The danger in the health care debate all along has been that a pro-choice president would issue a “signing statement” to include abortion in healthcare, unless the bill itself specifically excluded it. Thanks to Congressman Stupak, the President has promised to do the opposite: to confirm the application of the Hyde Amendment to the health care bill. This is an amazing turn of events, and I am mystified that pro-life groups are not sensing the significance of this. They seem to lack an understanding of the role of an executive order, by which the president gives marching orders to all federal employees.
The “Mexico City Policy” was an executive order signed first by President Reagan and then reinstated by George W. Bush. It barred any federal funding for organizations involved in abortion overseas. When challenged in the federal courts, it was ruled constitutional, because “the government has the right to oppose abortion, and to withhold funding as it deems fit.” The author of that language now sits on the US Supreme Court, appointed by President Obama. She is unlikely to withhold from him the same privilege she extended to his predecessor.
It is time for the Catholic Church to take a strong stand on those politicians who claim to be active catholics, but support, enact and vote for laws contrary to the teachings of the church. Abortion is the issue. At a minimum the church should not grant them the sacraments.
If Obama wanted to cut abortion funding, why didn’t he say, “let’s go back to the Stupak plan”? It was explicit, and in the legislation already. Also, if certain Democrats did their cost-benefit critique of Stupak’s abortion funding ban, why would Obama change at the last minute? Also, what happens to senior care and conscience protection? Obama hasn’t addressed those here, and yes, they are real concerns.
Another thing we have to take into account is what socialist health care in general means; people get less health care. Why? Doctors have to pay their bills and eat at the end of the day, so why do more work for effectively less compensation? Canada is the proof in the pudding. ObamaCare is chapter 2 of the same book.
I think something important to watch will be the reaction of pro-choice organizations in the short-term; they will probabably have some kind of heads up as to what the meaning behind what the adminstration wants to issue for real. I still think though, even with Stupak’s amendment, this bill would not have been the real deal for American health care reform (even though that amendment was spectacular and courageous). I would not want my insurance to have to face a govt. bureaucracy that never is the most efficient - what did Reagan and Thatcher fight for, if not to reduce the government’s role in things like that?
Yeah, the Catholic Church lost this battle. Now 32 Million Americans will have access to healthcare. Insurance companies will no longer be able to exclude people from insurance due to pre-existing conditions, and Insurance companies won’t be able to drop cancer patients coverage so that don’t have to continue paying for - oh - medical treatment.
Why was the Catholic Church against a bill that will do so much good? Oh yeah, they want to be able to control what EVERY American does.
Rev Ponessa, in response to your comments above “...and I am mystified that pro-life groups are not sensing the significance of this. They seem to lack an understanding of the role of an executive order, by which the president gives marching orders to all federal employees”, please review the comments below from Dorinda C. Bordlee, vice president and senior counsel of Bioethics Defense Fund, and editor of YourHealthcare411.com.
Executive Sham [Dorinda C. Bordlee]
Bioethics Defense Fund lawyers have carefully read the executive order used to induce Representative Stupak and his colleagues into providing the critical “yes” votes on the abortion-funding health-care bill now sitting on the president’s desk. Here’s our quick analysis of why the executive order is not worth the paper on which it is written:
1. The executive order directs no new action by any administrative agency. It merely directs the secretary of health to develop “model guidelines” for what is already in the Senate bill — namely, that there will be an accounting scheme that will, for the first time in history, allow government subsidies to be used to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion, provided that enrollees using that plan also pay an abortion surcharge into a segregated fund; and
2. The executive order then purports to do something that a president acting on his own cannot do without an enactment by Congress — to “extend” the Hyde Amendment to public dollars appropriated to Community Health Centers (like Planned Parenthood). If a president could do that, there would be no need to have a majority of Congress pass the Hyde Amendment each and every year to prevent abortion funding using Medicaid dollars for low-income government health care. Instead, we could have simply prevailed on each president to issue an executive order saying agencies can’t use Medicaid money for abortion. Congress controls the purse strings, not the president. That’s Civics 101.
The Obama administration knows full well that statutory law overrides executive orders. A court challenge (by Planned Parenthood) would immediately invalidate the null promises of the executive order. Bioethics Defense Fund is deeply disappointed that the Stupak Democrats allowed empty words and an obvious political ploy to trump the sanctity-of-life principle that they claimed to defend.
A president cannot amend a law with an executive order. Only congress can amend a law. An ammendment to a law last forever. An executive order won’t stand up in court when NARAL challenges it. If the president could amend or create a law wiht an executive order the president would’ve used an executive order to create his entire health care agenda. Please see civics 101—three branches of government—that’s just how government works. In a fairytale world where prolifers need cover to allow abortion for what they perceive as the “greater good” an executive order does just find. But we’re back in Kansas and not somewhere over the rainbow, Dorothy. In the real world an executive order doesn’t solve the problem with this law it stands to give Bart Stupak cover for making the wrong decision. Sorry Rev you’re wrong and giving health care to 30 million doesn’t really matter if we allow our tax dollars to kill millions in the process.
We do know the actual amount paid for Bart Stupak’s vote—see the press release: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/mi01_stupak/morenews/20100319faagrant.html
The amount is $726,409 FOR AIRPORTS IN
ALPENA, DELTA AND CHIPPEWA COUNTIES. This press release was sent out on March 19th. At least we know that 700k is what it costs to cave to abortion language.
The lack of praise for Stupak from the bishops shows one thing, they, like their Republican controllers, never wanted the bill to pass in the first place. Stupak got the final legislation to reflect exactly what the bishops claimed they wanted, but now they are silent (some are even still complaining). The bishops never wanted reform because the Republicans never wanted reform. Their half-hearted expression of support for expanding coverage was only window dressing. They thought they had it killed with unrealistic demands for abortion-funding restrictions. They were wrong. Now their real identity has been revealed. Thank God the true Catholic principles won out.
Yes, David, it’s those horrible Bishops. Go ahead and drink in the “social justice” Kool aid. The truth is what Bart Stupak did in the end was for his party and had nothing to do with the unborn. The pricetag on this bill is staggering. We can’t afford to sustain it. Jesus didn’t ask the government to help people he asked Christians to help people. The church and parishioner’s are supposed to help people with charity. Government doesn’t help people. This has been proven time and time again. It doesn’t seem like Stupak had a tough time with his decision
(see here:http://www.rollcall.com/news/44508-1.html?type=aggregate_friendly)
Roll Call even reports he got a kiss on the cheek from Democrat Anthony Wiener who is rabidly pro-choice. Who takes marching orders from a party? Bishops? Or maybe Bart Stupak.
I think that the Republicans claim to be pro-life, and talked about how a society is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable. However I found them to be hypocritical on this issue. The most vulnerable in our society are the unborn, the special needs, AND the sick who have no health insurance and are dying at the rate of 45 thousand per year. They never gave the 31 million uninsured people more than a passing. obligatory mention, and only when shamed into it by the Democrats. I don’t know if this health care bill will increase abortion, I hope that it does not. I do think a woman is more likely to get an abortion if she has no health insurance for herself and her baby. I know what it is like to have insurance claims denied due to a pre existing condtion, and what it is like to have premiums go up by 30 percent a year. It means even if you can afford it now, the day is coming when you won’t afford it. I have seen the terrible games insurance companies play to avoid paying claims, games played with sick, vulnerable people. And I have become convinced the Republicans do not care at all about any of this. I am a life long Republican, but am leaving the party.If they didn’t get the kind of bill they wanted, it’s their own fault.
The executive order promised to Stupak states that the order will operate within the laws already set forth which control those devices. In other words, the order can be reversed by just a whip of some president’s pen. And Obama himself could reverse his own executive order, and I wouldn’t put it past him to do this.
Obama applied the reversal law on the ban of federal funding used in embryonic stem cell research that Bush signed. Obama sat down on day one of his presidency to look at how to exercise his full authority given by the law. Reversals were the first thing on his priority agenda and more specifically, the fed funding of embryonic stem cell research. He is an anti-life president, even though he pretends to be all about choice, the choice to legally kill if a person wants to. He’s all about giving people the money and means to legally kill.
Now, federal funds are freely used in the desecration of tiny fetuses, most lines of which have been “conceived” by private funding because they are quality material. The federal funds aren’t used to create the lines, however. (Oh, thank you for the spare, O.)
He said something to the effect, but it wasn’t in the order, about still maintaining the ban on cloning. But, those are just verbal words.
Cloning is wide open, but federally funded practice has not happened….yet.
He also said something to the effect that strict guidelines would be put in place along with the reversal, but to-date nothing has been set forth. The sky is the limit, if federal money is limitless.
Now, no more is said about such. The killing goes on with federal money in the shadows. Obama’s moved onward to solidify the desecration of fetuses within the womb.
This health care law must be repealed and anti-abortion language installed. The executive order fix doesn’t cut the mustard…Obama knew this. He isn’t stupid. Stupak, though, didn’t understand. He got taken for a fool.
I would suggest that Stupak quit his democratic party, because they are not democratic any longer and won’t be either as long as Obama is leader of that party.
Concerning the opposition of ObamaCare being against sick people, be that opposition be of the bishops or Republicans, there is one thing to consider. Is ObamaCare the only option to do this? Is it the best option? Can we have reform without making taxpayers pay for abortions of others? With conscience protection? Without reducing doctors’ reimbursements from Medicaid, resulting in what will become rationing of senior care? Canada shows what happens in that case. Obama and company did a good job to make this look like the only option, but I think the debate could have brought forth much better and probably much cheaper plans.
Can anyone provide me, or direct me to where I can find, the names of Catholic Senators and House members and how they voted on the HealthCare bill?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.