WASHINGTON (EWTN News/CNA)—The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation on Oct. 13 that would prevent federal taxpayer funding of abortion under President Obama’s health-care law. The approved measure would also strengthen conscience protection for health-care employees.
“A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the American people and ought to be the law of the land,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on the House floor.
“But the law, particularly as it is currently enforced, does not reflect the will of the people. This has created additional uncertainty, given that Americans are concerned not just about how much we’re spending, but how we’re spending it.”
H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, passed by a vote of 251-172 in the House.
The bill makes certain that “the Hyde Amendment applies to all the programs that are both authorized and appropriated in Obamacare,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., during the debate over the act.
The Hyde Amendment is a provision added annually to appropriations bills providing federal funds for health care. It prohibits federal funding for abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
“Nothing less than a comprehensive prohibition on public funding, promotion and facilitation of elective abortion in any federal health program satisfies the demands of social justice,” said Smith.
The Protect Life Act also specifies that health-insurance carriers cannot be forced to cover abortion and protects the conscience rights of health-care individuals and institutions who refuse to participate in abortions.
The U.S. bishops applauded the passage of the bill.
“By passing the Protect Life Act, the House has taken an important step toward authentic health-care reform that respects the dignity of all, from conception onward,” said Deirdre McQuade, pro-life spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The bill is expected to face heavy opposition in the Senate, and the Obama administration has threatened to veto the measure. A statement released by the administration on Oct. 12 said that “the legislation intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private-insurance choices that women and their families have today.”
On Sep. 9, 2009, President Obama told Congress that under his legislation, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
The administration claims that the Affordable Care Act, along with an executive order issued by President Obama in March 2010, already prohibit federal funding of abortion, except in limited cases.
However, critics contend that the language of the act does not prohibit such funding. They argue that the president’s executive order is inadequate because it does not amend the bill and would be overturned if brought to federal court.
The Obama administration criticized the Protect Life Act, saying that it “goes well beyond the safeguards found in current law and reinforced in the president’s executive order by restricting women’s private-insurance choices.”
If the bill is passed by Congress, the president’s “senior advisors would recommend that he veto” it, the Oct. 12 statement said.
Janet Morana: Who Were the Early Feminists in the U.S.?
Edward Pentin: High Expectations for Rome March for Life 2013
Comments
Post a Comment
It disgusts me that a group of religious believers’ ideals are being imposed on men and women by our country’s government. It should never be the case that someone cannot choose an appropriate and inclusive healthcare plan for him/herself. And it’s astonishing that fanatical groups of people and their representatives are even given the time of day with regard to other peoples’ healthcare. I’ll respect their right to believe in whatever they want when it stops affecting me and others who object to such disregard to the rights we are supposed to have. How is it that anyone has the right to decide that the sanctity of a woman’s life is of lesser value than the sanctity of a fetus? Anyone against abortion has the right and the freedom to choose not to have one. Their personal convictions should not make choices for other people. Our nation was founded on principles which strictly avoided this kind of conflict, but secularism the way our founding fathers intended it to be is dead in America at this point.
Here, here, Gabrielle! Those atheists don’t stand a chance against your logic!
Gabriele you cannot argue that religious people should not have a say in abortion and then ask them to pay for it. If we pay taxes then we have a right to say where that money goes.
The true Climate Change; not to be confused with the phony Malthusian Al Gore fraud, is the “Warming to Life” Climate Change in Congress. Let every Bishop note how the Senators vote. If they are “Catholic” and do not support the House Measure they should be publicly rebuked for siding with death not life.
Killing a child especially in the womb is against human nature not only certain religions. The only one imposed upon here is the one is our fellow countrymen who have no voice but the voice of their mothers. You are right- a woman’s life is not of lesser value- BOTH lives are worth more than the stars.
@Gabrielle said,
No reasonable person would promote that idea. Perhaps your position would be completely different if you didn’t start from a false assumption about what being pro-life means, which is that a mother’s life and that of her unborn baby are of equal value.
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.