Biden: When Life Begins

Wait .... when in the world does he think life begins if not when, well, it begins? https://t.co/y7znAwCqGm

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 3, 2021

Biden in 2015: "I'm prepared to accept that the moment of conception is a human life and being." pic.twitter.com/1ZPCVWjxJY

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) September 3, 2021

Not long ago, he said, "I'm prepared to accept that the moment of conception is a human life and being."

Now, Biden says, "I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all, I respect that, I don't agree, but I respect that, not going to impose that on people."

If Biden doesn't want to impose his views on others, why does he oppose the Hyde Amendment and want to force pro-life Americans to fund abortions?

Of course, he's imposing his newfound view that life does not begin at conception on others.

What convinced Biden to change his mind about when life begins?

Did he forget what he believed?

Did Biden change his mind or has his mind gone away?

Meghan McCain, Biden, and Taxpayer-Funded Abortion

Thank you, Meghan McCain, for courageously standing for life.

"Abortion can do deep spiritual harm to you. Abortion is murder, the government is funding the killing of the unborn." -@MeghanMcCain pic.twitter.com/EFPJw1Tf7r

— Live Action (@LiveAction) June 21, 2021

I agree.

Joe Manchin Supports Hyde Amendment

Thank you @Sen_JoeManchin for continuing to support the life saving Hyde Amendment

This gives a reality check that the legacy of the Hyde Amendment (with over 2 million babies saved!) is a bipartisan issue & not one that @JoeBiden can easily erase.https://t.co/10JiSMTrQi

— March for Life Action (@MFLAction) June 11, 2021

No wonder Democrats can't stand Joe Manchin. If you don't want to use taxpayer dollars to fund the slaughter of unborn babies, you ain't a Democrat.

Biden Budget Reverses Hyde Amendment

The Biden Administration’s budget proposes to reverse the longstanding Hyde Amendment—meaning taxpayer dollars can fund abortions. This is a nonstarter. Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund abortions. RT if you agree! #IA01

— Ashley Hinson (@RepAshleyHinson) June 2, 2021

FLASHBACK to 2007

Biden says he opposes taxpayer-funded abortion because it forces others “to accept a different view.”

Biden’s new budget forces pro-life taxpayers to pay for abortion. pic.twitter.com/AFMp3SZWTY

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 2, 2021

Biden's Pro-Abortion Agenda

Biden Administration Preparing ‘Widespread Rollback’ Of Pro-Life Legislation, May Repeal Hyde Amendment https://t.co/qBY5iF39Q2 pic.twitter.com/4kNUVpC00r

— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 20, 2021

Our country will again embrace a culture of death.

Pray for all the innocents who will be slaughtered with the Biden regime's assistance.

Vote For Life, Vote For Trump

Joe Biden will not protect the unborn. He offers only darkness, supporting abortion up until birth.

From Wisconsin Right to Life:

Wisconsin Right to Life is proud to support President Trump as he seeks re-election.

We understand that some may hesitate to cast their ballot for President Trump, but we also firmly believe that policy should always outweigh personality. And President Trump's policies have affirmed and defended the right to life unapologetically since his first day in office. At the very core of the pro-life movement is the idea that all life is valued and deserving of protection. Without a basic right to life, there can be no other rights. President Trump has boldly defended the right to life; we are confident he will continue to do so if re-elected.

We compiled a few of President Trump's pro-life accomplishments. Many of these will not be new to you, but some may have been overlooked by media. Whether you plan to vote for Trump, are undecided, or plan to vote against Trump, please take a moment and read through the below list. 

• President Trump cut Planned Parenthood's tax funding by over $60 million. Read More
• President Trump has made three Supreme Court nominations who respect the Constitution, the rule of law, and the right to life. Read More
• President Trump has made 230 judicial appointments, each fair jurists who respect the right to life. Read More
• President Trump signed an executive order to protect babies who survive abortion attempts. Read More
• President Trump blocked tax dollars from paying for abortion overseas. Read More
• President Trump required insurance providers to disclose whether plans cover abortion. Read More
• President Trump’s administration boldly proclaimed that “there is no international right to abortion” at the UN General Assembly in 2019. Read More
• President Trump created a Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board, which rejected research proposals involving abortion-derived fetal tissue. Learn More
• President Trump has surrounded himself with pro-life leaders, selecting champions Mike Pence as Vice President, Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, and Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Read More
• President Trump fights for Conscience Protections, creating a division within HHS to oversee enforcement. Read More
• President Trump pledged “to vote any legislation that weakens current pro-life federal policies and laws...or encourages the destruction of innocent human life at any stage.” Read More
• President Trump defunded UNFPA, which supports China's forced abortion and birth control policies. Read More
• President Trump proclaimed that “every child, of every color-born and unborn-is made in the holy image of God.” Read More
• President Trump issued an executive order to strengthen the child welfare system. Read More
• President Trump is actively defensive against mail-order abortions. Read More
• President Trump supports the pro-life movement, becoming the first sitting President to attend and address the annual March for Life. Read More
• President Trump took action against California for violating the Weldon Amendment by discriminating against organizations that do not cover abortion in their health care plans. Read More
• President Trump expanded free speech protections on college campuses, defending the right the right of issue advocacy groups like pro-life groups to educate their peers. Read More
• President Trump featured Ellie Schneider, who was born at 21 weeks gestation, at his annual State of the Union address in 2020. Ellie is one of the youngest babies to survive in the United States and is now a healthy toddler. President Trump’s invitation was public testimony to science and health care practices backing the pro-life movement. Late-term abortions, or abortions performed after fetal viability, are never necessary, and fetal viability is increasing with medical advancements. Read More
• President Trump announced his intention to increase federal funding for neonatal research. Medical advancements developed through neonatal research increase fetal viability, provide more opportunities for infants to survive, and tear down pro-abortion arguments. Read More
• President Trump allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood of Medicare funds. Read More
• President Trump supports the Hyde Amendment and has not called on Congress to pass legislation to make it permanent. Read More
• President Trump invited pro-life advocates, like Abby Johnson, to speak at the Republican National Convention. Read More

 

This list, though long, is not all-inclusive. President Trump and his administration have stood without apology in defense of the right to life. He has promised continued support of life-affirming policies and legislation. His reelection is imperative to the pro-life movement. This election is truly a life-or-death situation.

We're not supporting President Trump because he says he is pro-life; we're supporting him because he is pro-life.

Vote for life.

Vote for Trump.

Joe Biden and Hyde Amendment

So much for Joe Biden being the moderate Democrat in a field of Leftist extremists.

#BREAKING: Joe Biden reverses stance on Hyde Amendment after blowback https://t.co/1doO97lAgh pic.twitter.com/rSJ4LLlPZ1

— The Hill (@thehill) June 7, 2019

After 2 days of intense criticism, Joe Biden reversed himself on one of the issues most important to Democratic voters, saying he no longer supports a measure that bans federal funding for most abortions https://t.co/FIs8b75O2m

— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 7, 2019

Paul Ryan: March for Life 2017

Today, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) addressed the Americans who participated in today's March for Life:

"Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the country march on Washington today, united around a single purpose: defending life.

"And, for the first time in a while, I am happy to say that the House, the Senate, and now the White House are united around that same purpose.

"On his first full day in office, President Trump renewed President Reagan’s Mexico City policy—which bans taxpayer money from funding abortions abroad.

"This week, the House passed H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which makes the Hyde Amendment permanent, and bans taxpayer money from funding abortions here at home.

"This is truly a new dawn for the unborn and for those women and men who defend them.

"Today, you march to defend the rights of those who cannot defend themselves. You march to give a voice to the silenced. Thank you for your passion and courage. Know that we march with you and that we will not stop fighting until every life is protected under the law."

Timothy Dolan: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Cardinal Timothy Dolan is not sitting quietly by as Obama and the Democrats tamper with the First Amendment.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan's update on the Obama administration's assault on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:

Over the last six months or so, the Catholic Church in the United States has found itself in some tension with the executive branch of the federal government over a very grave issue: religious freedom. Can a government bureau, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it can be exercised? Can government also coerce the church to violate its conscience?

I wanted to let you, the great people of the archdiocese, know how we’re doing in this fight. Thank you for your extraordinary unity, support, and encouragement. Throughout all the archdiocese, our people – both as patriotic citizens and committed Catholics — have been very effective in letting government know that we are not at peace at all with this attempt to curtail the freedom of religion and sanctity of conviction we cherish as both Catholics and Americans.

This has not been a fight of our choosing. We’d rather not be in it. We’d prefer to concentrate on the noble tasks of healing the sick, teaching our youth, and helping the poor, all now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic intrusion into the internal life of the church. And we were doing all of those noble works rather well, I dare say, without these radical new mandates from the government. The Catholic Church in America has a long tradition of partnership with government and the wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and abroad. We’d sure rather be partnering than punching.

Nor is this a “Catholic” fight alone. As a nurse from Harrison emailed me, “Cardinal, I’m not so much mad about all this as a Catholic, but as an American.” It was a Baptist minister, Governor Mike Huckabee, who observed, “In this matter, we’re all Catholics.”

And it is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. Pure and simple, it’s about religious freedom, the sacred right, protected by our constitution, of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.

When the President announced on January 20th that the choking mandates from HHS would remain — a shock to me, since he had personally assured me that he would do nothing to impede the good work of the Church in health care, education, and charity, and that he considered the protection of conscience a sacred duty — not only you, but men and women of every faith, or none at all, rallied in protest. The worry that we bishops had expressed — that such government control was contrary to our deepest political values — was eloquently articulated by constitutional scholars and leaders of every creed. Even newspaper editorials supported us!

On February 10th, the President announced that the insurance providers would have to pay the bill, not the Church’s schools, hospitals, clinics, or vast network of charitable outreach. He considered this “concession” adequate.

Did this help? We bishops wondered if it would, and announced at first that, while withholding final judgment, we would certainly give it close scrutiny.

Well, we have — and we’re still as worried as ever. For one, there was not even a nod to the deeper concerns about trespassing upon religious freedom, or of modifying the HHS’ attempt to define the how and who of our ministry through the suffocating mandates.

Two, since a big part of our ministries are “self-insured,” how is this going to help us? We’ll still have to pay! And what about individual believers being coerced to pay?

Three, there was still no resolution about the handcuffs placed upon renowned Catholic charitable agencies, both national and international, and their exclusion from contracts just because they will not refer victims of human trafficking, immigrants and refugees, and the hungry of the world, for abortions, sterilization, or contraception.

So, we have given it careful study. Our conclusion: we’re still very worried. There seem far more questions than answers, more confusion than clarity.

Now what to do?

Well, for one, we’ll keep up advocacy and education on the issue. We continue to tap into your concern as citizens and count on your support. Regrettably, the unity of the Catholic community has been tempered a bit by those who think the President has listened to us and now we can quit worrying. You’re sure free to take their advice. But I hope you’ll listen to your pastors who are still very concerned.

Two, we’ll continue to seek a rescinding of the suffocating mandates that require us to violate our moral convictions — or at least a wider latitude to the exemptions so that churches can be free — and of the rigidly narrow definition of church, minister, and ministry that would prevent us from helping those in need, educating children, and healing the sick who are not Catholic.

The President invited us to “work out the wrinkles,” and we have been taking him seriously. Unfortunately, this seems to be going nowhere: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is simply scurrilous and insulting). The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets,” which doesn’t bode well for a truly acceptable “accommodation.” And a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff ended with the President’s people informing us that the broader concerns of religious freedom — that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.

So, I don’t know if we’ll get anywhere with the executive branch.

Congress offers more hope, with thoughtful elected officials proposing promising legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. As is clear from the current debate in the senate, our opponents are marketing this as a “woman’s health issue.” Of course, it cannot be reduced to that. It’s about religious freedom. (By the way, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country. Here in New York State, Fidelis, the Medicare/Medicaid insurance provider, owned by the Church, consistently receives top ratings for its quality of service to women and children.)

And the courts offer the most light. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a dramatic rebuff to the administration, but one apparently unheeded by the White House. Thus, our bishops’ conference and many individual religious entities are working with some top-notch law firms who have told us they feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bono.

So, we have to be realistic and prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (In an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to “give up for Lent” our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some want us to engage in civil disobedience and be fined; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.

Sorry to go on at such length. You can see how passionately I feel about this. But, from what I sense, you do too. You all have been such an inspiration, and I owe it to you to keep you posted. We need you more than ever! We can’t give up hoping, praying, trying, and working hard.

As Cardinal Dolan says, this article by Cardinal Francis George really is excellent.

In the public discussion thus far, efforts have been made to isolate the bishops from the Catholic faithful by focusing attention exclusively on “reproductive” issues. But the acrimony could as easily focus next year or the year after on assisted suicide or any other moral issue that can be used to distract attention from the attack on religious liberty. Many will recognize in these moves a tactic now familiar in our public life: those who cannot be co-opted are isolated and then destroyed. The arguments used are both practical and theoretical.

Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

Theoretically, it is argued that there are Catholic voices that disagree with the teaching of the church and therefore with the bishops. There have always been those whose personal faith is not adequate to the faith of the church. Perhaps this is the time for everyone to re-read the Acts of the Apostles. Bishops are the successors of the apostles; they collectively receive the authority to teach and govern that Christ bestowed upon the apostles. Bishops don’t claim to speak for every baptized Catholic. Bishops speak, rather, for the Catholic and apostolic faith. Those who hold that faith gather with them; others go their own way. They are and should be free to do so, but they deceive themselves and others in calling their organizations Catholic.

Since 1915, the Catholic bishops of the United States have taught that basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society. Two years ago, we asked that whatever instruments were crafted to care for all, the Hyde and Weldon and Church amendments restricting funding for abortion and respecting institutional conscience continue to be incorporated into law. They were excluded. As well, the present health care reform act doesn’t cover entire sections of the U.S. population. It is not universal.

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.

...The observance of Lent reminds us that, in the end, we all stand before Christ and give an accounting of our lives. From that perspective, I ask lay Catholics and others of good will to step back and understand what is happening to our country as the church is despoiled of her institutions and as freedom of conscience and of religion become a memory from a happier past. The suffering being imposed on the church and on society now is not a voluntary penance. We should both work and pray to be delivered from it.

The issue is not contraception or a "war on women" or Rush Limbaugh's choice of words.

The issue is RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

I'm not giving that up.

Louise Slaughter: GOP Freshmen Came 'To Kill Women'

Do the Democrats have no shame?

Louise Slaughter certainly doesn't.

From CNSNews:

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said today that the new Republicans elected to the House of Representatives last November came to Congress "to kill women." She also likened Republican efforts to prohibit federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered to actions taken by Nazis.

“This is probably one of the worst times we’ve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus," Slaughter said. "In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”

...She made the remarks Wednesday on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., at a “Stand Up for Women’s Health” rally sponsored by the National Organization for Women, NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

Slaughter took aim at H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill that would make permanent the Hyde Amendment restrictions on federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape or incest or a threat to the life of the mother, and that would also prohibit people from taking tax deductions for payments made for abortions except in those circumstances.

Although the text of the bill makes no reference to people needing a "receipt" to prove their abortion was for one of the excepted categories if they try to deduct the abortion fee they paid from their federal taxes, Slaughter suggested that under the bill, if enacted, people would need receipts for their abortions in such circumstances.

She then equated that perceived need to the sort of requirement that would be imposed by Nazis.

“You are allowed to have an abortion if you have been raped or it’s a matter of incest,” said Slaughter. “However, you have to keep a receipt. Did you know that? It’s sort of like an old German Nazi movie. Show me your papers!”

Nice.

Love that "new tone."

Video.

Obama: Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage in Pennsylvania

To get the votes to pass Obama's government-run health care, the Democrats had to cut a deal with their pro-life colleagues.

The compromise that satisfied Bart Stupak and his fellow pro-life Dems, enabling them cover to support the bill, involved Obama signing an executive order to bar federal funds from being used for abortion services.

At the time, the order was deemed by both anti-abortion and pro-abortion proponents to be worthless.

That was a good call.

Barbara Lyons, Wisconsin Right to Life, writes:

It is the first proof that Obama’s assurances of no federal funding for abortion are phony, phony, phony.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of Obamacare and has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of Governor Edward Rendell (D) under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania. The high-risk pool is one of the new programs created by the sweeping federal health care bill signed into law on March 23.

We knew the rhetoric was phony from the start, from assurances by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the President’s useless Executive Order. President Obama will include funding of abortion and abortion coverage whenever and wherever possible in federal government programs.

The President worked overtime to ensure that his signature health care law would allow subsidies for abortion coverage and federal funding of abortions. Now his Administration is working behind the scenes to expand abortion using administrative decisions which he hopes will escape public notice. This is the first but will not be the last of Obama’s programs which will subsidize abortions.

When the most pro-abortion president in the history of our country signed the executive order supposedly guaranteeing that no federal funds would be used to kill the unborn, upholding the Hyde Amendment, I had my doubts.

Yuval Levin called the executive order option "almost purely symbolic" and a "bad joke."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, speaking from the floor of the House, explained that an executive order from Obama would NOT be effective. The passage of the health care legislation WILL mean that federal funds will pay for abortions.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat, admitted, "An executive order can't change the law."

The $160 million given by the Obama administration to Pennsylvania to "set up a new 'high-risk' insurance program under a provision of Obamacare," one that "will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania," verifies that Obama's executive order was, in fact, a very bad joke.

Abortion Executive Order: Text

Here's the text:

Executive Order ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy.
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors--Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers--are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges.
The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.
The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Catholic Bishops: 'Vote NO on Health Reform Bill'

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops rejects what Democrats in the House of Representatives are prepared to do today, including Catholics like Nancy Pelosi.

In a letter to the representatives, the USCCB expressed its concerns.

Bishops to House of Representatives: Fix Flaws or Vote No on Health Reform Bill

House leadership ignoring pro-life members for essential changes in the legislation
Won’t even try to address the serious problems on abortion funding
Ignoring conscience protection and fair treatment of immigrants

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops urged the House of Representatives to fix flaws in health care legislation or vote against its passage in a March 20 letter to House members. The letter was signed by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chair of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chair on the Committee on Migration. The letter follows.

Dear Representative:

For decades, the United States Catholic bishops have supported universal health care. The Catholic Church teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential for human life and dignity. Our community of faith provides health care to millions, purchases health care for tens of thousands and addresses the failings of our health care system in our parishes, emergency rooms and shelters. This is why we as bishops continue to insist that health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all is a moral imperative and urgent national priority.

We are convinced that the Senate legislation now presented to the House of Representatives on a “take it or leave it” basis sadly fails this test and ought to be opposed. Why do we take this position, when we have a long record of support for health care reform? Our fundamental objections can be summarized in two points:

1. Health care reform must protect life and conscience, not threaten them. The Senate bill extends abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions (for example, through a new appropriation for services at Community Health Centers that bypasses the Hyde amendment), and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions. Needed health care reform must keep in place the longstanding and widely supported federal policy that neither elective abortion nor plans which include elective abortion can be paid for with federal funds. Simply put, health care reform ought to continue to apply both parts of the Hyde amendment, no more and no less. The House adopted this policy by a large bipartisan majority, establishing the same protections that govern Medicaid, SCHIP, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and other federal health programs.

Despite claims to the contrary, the status quo prohibits the federal government from funding or facilitating plans that include elective abortion. The Senate bill clearly violates this prohibition by providing subsidies to purchase such plans. The House bill provided that no one has to pay for other people’s abortions, while this Senate bill does not. While the Senate provides for one plan without abortion coverage in each exchange, those who select another plan in an exchange to better meet the special needs of their families will be required to pay a separate mandatory abortion fee into a fund exclusively for abortions. This new federal requirement is a far more direct imposition on the consciences of those who do not wish to pay for the destruction of unborn human life than anything currently in federal law.

It is not those who require that the Hyde Amendment be fully applied who are obstructing reform, since this is the law of the land and the will of the American people. Rather, those who insist on expanding federal participation in abortion, require people to pay for other people’s abortions, and refuse to incorporate essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context) are threatening genuine reform. With conscience protection as with abortion funding, our goal is simply to preserve the status quo.


2. Universal coverage should be truly universal. People should never be denied coverage because they can’t afford it, because of where they live or work, or because of where they come from and when they got here. The Senate bill would not only continue current law that denies legal immigrants access to Medicaid for five years, but also prohibit undocumented immigrants from buying insurance for their families in the exchanges using their own money. These provisions could leave immigrants and their families worse off, and also hurt the public health of our nation.

Now, after a year of divisive political combat, members of the House are told that they can advance health care reform only by adopting the Senate legislation as is, including these fundamental flaws. The House leadership is ignoring the pleas of pro-life members for essential changes in the legislation. Apparently they will not even try to address the serious problems on abortion funding, conscience protection and fair treatment of immigrants.

We are bishops, not politicians, policy experts or legislative tacticians. We are also pastors, teachers, and citizens. At this point of decision, we cannot compromise on basic moral principles. We can only urge -- and hope and pray -- that the House of Representatives will still find the will and the means to adopt health care reform that protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. The legislation the House adopted, while not perfect, came closer to meeting these criteria. The Senate legislation simply does not meet them.

With deep regret, but clear in our moral judgment, we are compelled to continue to urge House members to oppose the Senate bill unless these fundamental flaws are remedied. At this critical moment, we urge Representatives to take the steps necessary to ensure that health care reform respects the life and dignity of all, from conception to natural death.

Any attempts to remedy the fundamental moral flaws in ObamaCare would not be sincere nor would they be permanent.

The Obama Democrats have no intention of protecting "the life, dignity, conscience and health of all."

They stand in staunch opposition to that.

These culture of death radicals might say whatever they need to say or make promises to get the votes to pass the legislation, but there is no way that they intend to enact government-run health care which respects the life and dignity of all.

It's an oxymoron.

Obama's Health Care Proposal and Abortion

SENATE HEALTH BILL WOULD BECOME EVEN MORE EXPANSIVELY PRO-ABORTION IF MODIFIED BY NEW OBAMA PROPOSALS

WASHINGTON -- The following statement may be attributed to Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life affiliates in all 50 states.

Any member of Congress who votes for the final legislation proposed by President Obama will be voting for direct federal funding of elective abortion through Community Health Centers, and also an array of other pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates.

The health bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) had become, by the conclusion of the Senate amendment process, the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade. The Senate bill, as passed, contained seven distinct problems pertaining to abortion policies. (The bill passed earlier by the House, H.R. 3962, contained none of these pro-abortion components, thanks to adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment on the House floor on November 7, 2009, by a vote of 240-194.) President Obama today proposed "a targeted set of changes to" the Senate-passed bill. None of President Obama's proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill, and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program).

If all of the President's changes were made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally administered plans), and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion.

Here is one problem, offered for illustration: The Senate bill, due to a last-minute amendment, provides $7 billion for the nation's 1,250 Community Health Centers, without any restriction whatever on the use of these federal funds to pay directly for abortion on demand. (These funds are entirely untouched by the "Hyde Amendment" that currently covers Medicaid.) Obama today proposed to increase that figure to $11 billion, but without adding a prohibition on the use of the funds for abortion. (The House-passed bill would provide $12 billion, but in the House bill the funds would be covered by the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.) Two pro-abortion groups, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, are already actively campaigning for Community Health Centers to perform elective abortions. In short, the Senate bill would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers. A memorandum documenting this issue in further detail is posted here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoCommHealth.pdf

The abortion-related differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills are far, far greater than one would gather from reading superficial summaries such as those published repeatedly in the mainstream news media. These thumbnail sketches have tended to focus exclusively and superficially on certain provisions associated with Senator Ben Nelson. NRLC believes that the Nelson provisions are unacceptable, but the pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill go far beyond the flawed Nelson provisions. A letter from NRLC to U.S. House members, explaining the multiple pro-abortion components of the Senate-passed bill, is posted here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetteronAbortionProvisions.html

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) produced a 13-page memorandum that throws the many unacceptable provisions of the Senate bill into stark relief, which is posted here: http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/life_conscience.pdf

A substantial number of pro-life Democrats in the House, including some lawmakers whose names have not been mentioned on the various published lists, have told their constituents that they are not going to vote for the Senate-passed bill because of the abortion problems. For pro-life Democrats, President Obama's proposal only makes matters worse. The only thing that would fix the Senate bill on abortion is permanent, bill-wide language that is functionally identical to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment adopted in the House on November 7, 2009.

The Obama proposal also would force rationing of lifesaving medical treatment, a matter that will be the subject of separate comment by the National Right to Life Committee.

__________________

Here's a news release from Wisconsin Right to Life:

Obama Health Care Proposal Far Worse on Abortion Than Even the Senate Version

"If we thought the Senate health care bill was the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever considered by Congress, we now find that it pales in comparison to President Obama's health care proposal which was revealed today," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life.

The Senate bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) contained seven distinct problems pertaining to abortion policies. The earlier-passed House bill contained none of these problems due to the adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment on November 7, 2009 by a vote of 240-194.

Today, President Obama proposed a health care proposal that retains all of the abortion-related problems in the Senate bill and goes much further. Obama proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures through Community Health Centers and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion through the premium-subsidy tax credits program.

If all of Obama's abortion expansions were made, the result would be the direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally administered plans), and federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion.

"Any member of the Wisconsin congressional delegation who votes for legislation proposed by President Obama will be voting for the direct federal funding of elective abortion through Community Health Centers as well as other pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates," said Armacost.

Dianne Feinstein: Tax Dollars for Abortion 'Morally Correct'

Dianne Feinstein considers the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions to be 'morally correct.'

From CNSNews:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) told CNSNews.com that using tax dollars from pro-life Americans to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion is morally correct.

The health care bill put before the Senate by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) would in fact provide tax dollars to health insurance plans that cover abortion. An amendment to the health care bill sponsored by Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) that would have prohibited tax dollars from going to insurance plans that cover abortion was defeated yesterday.

As the Senate was debating the Nelson amendment Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Feinstein: "Is it morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to cover insurance plans that cover abortion?"

Feinstein said: "Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health. I think she ought to have a policy available to her."

CNSNews.com asked: "So it’s morally right for pro-life taxpayers to have to help pay for plans that cover abortion?"

Feinstein responded: "Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well."

Audio.



Feinstein puts such a ridiculous spin on the issue.

"Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health."

What percent of the abortions in this country are performed under those circumstances?

Feinstein's notion of "moral correctness" is twisted. It certainly is not morally correct to use the taxes of pro-life Americans to pay for the murder of future Americans.

She's right that our dollars are used by the government for things we don't agree with. It happens all the time. However, it doesn't always involve such a weighty moral issue as ending human life.

In effect, Feinstein and her comrades want to do away with the Hyde Amendment. They want to eliminate any obstacle to protect the unborn.

Speaking of "moral correctness," Barbara Mikulski believes:

I think it’s morally wrong to vote against health care, because if you really are pro-life--or as Richard Rick Warren says, 'whole-life'--then universal access to health care that would guarantee maternity health, sound wonderful deliveries for children, and so on, I think that’s what we want to do. I believe voting for universal access, ending the punitive practices of insurance companies, particularly their discrimination against women, is morally wrong.

Audio.



Isn't it morally wrong to discriminate against the unborn females?

I consider abortion to be a most horrific punitive practice.

Bottom line: It's immoral to kill the innocent, the weak, the vulnerable, the unborn.

The Democrats' health care plan is immoral.

Abortion and Senate Health Care Bill

Wisconsin Right to Life reacts to Harry Reid's health care bill.

Wisconsin Right to Life is joining with its parent organization, the National Right to Life Committee, in condemning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.

"Not surprisingly, Reid is doing the bidding of the Obama White House and the radical pro-abortion movement who are demanding the funding of abortion through federal programs," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "They do so in spite of the substantial majority of Americans who believe that abortion should be excluded from government-funded and government-sponsored health programs."

The Reid language closely mirrors pro-abortion funding language offered by Rep. Lois Capps and originally contained in the House bill. Capps has a 100% pro-abortion voting record. National Right to Life and Wisconsin Right to Life strongly opposed the Capps language which was deleted by the House by a vote of 240-194 on November 7, as 64 Democrats (one fourth of all House Democrats), along with 176 Republicans, voted to replace it with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director of the National Right to Life Committee explained, "The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prevent federal subsidies for abortion by applying the principles of longstanding federal laws such as the Hyde Amendment to the new programs created by the health care legislation. Those principles prohibit both direct funding of abortion procedures, and subsidies for plans that cover elective abortions, in existing federal programs such as Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the military."

In describing the Reid language, Johnson said, "The Reid bill establishes a big new federal health insurance program, the public option (although now referred to in Reid's bill as the 'community health insurance option.' The bill authorizes (on page 118) the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it."
"In addition, the bill creates new tax-supported subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand," said Johnson.

"The National Right to Life Committee, Wisconsin Right to Life and the other NRCL state affiliates will continue to fight for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and oppose attempts by the White House and Democratic congressional leaders to ignore the will of the people by foisting upon them new federal government programs that will fund coverage of elective abortion," said Armacost.

Here's the statement from the National Right to Life Committee:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.

Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record, said in a press release following release of the Reid language: "It appears that their approach closely mirrors my language which was originally included in the House bill." The Capps language referred to was opposed by NRLC and other pro-life organizations and was deleted by the House by a vote of 240-194 on November 7, as 64 Democrats (one fourth of all House Democrats), along with 176 Republicans, voted to replace it with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prevent federal subsidies for abortion by applying the principles of longstanding federal laws such as the Hyde Amendment to the new programs created by the health care legislation. Those principles prohibit both direct funding of abortion procedures, and subsidies for plans that cover elective abortions, in existing federal programs such as Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the military.

Regrettably but predictably, Reid rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts language. Instead, Reid has sought to please the militant minority that demands funding of abortion through federal programs, even though substantial majorities of Americans believe that abortion should be excluded from government-funded and government-sponsored health programs.

The Reid bill establishes a big new federal health insurance program, the public option (although now referred to in Reid's bill as the "community health insurance option"). The bill authorizes (on page 118) the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program. This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it.

In addition, the bill creates new tax-supported subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand.

National Right to Life will continue to fight for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and to oppose the stubborn attempts of congressional Democratic leaders to establish new federal government programs that will fund coverage of elective abortions.

Did anyone really think that the radical pro-abortion Democrats would offer a health care bill that doesn't promote the Culture of Death?

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was just window-dressing.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are advocates for the slaughter of innocent human life.

We have never had a more extreme pro-abortion president. Obama doesn't want to sign a bill that would omit something as important to him as allowing for the killing of the unborn.
_________________

From LifeNews:

House Republican Leader John Boehner says the new health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled yesterday contains a monthly abortion premium that taxpayers will be forced to pay. His analysis follows that of pro-life groups that say the bill contains massive abortion funding.

"Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new 'abortion premium' fee on Americans in the government-run plan," he notes.

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan.

Reid's plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

"What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan," Boehner says.

He says the premium is mentioned on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.”

"The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services," he explained.

Under the bill, Americans will be required to pay at least $1 a month to cover the cost of abortions.

"Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month," Boehner said today.

Obama's Speech: Abortion

Wisconsin Right to Life responds to Obama's health care speech last night, "Barack Obama Continues to Deceive in His Address to Congress."

Last night, President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on the subject of health care reform. The legislation Obama is promoting would pay for elective abortions with government funds and provide huge government subsidies to purchase private insurance plans that would cover elective abortions.

"Of course, Obama didn't say that last night," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "Instead he said 'One more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.'"

For weeks, Obama has been manipulating the media into reporting a number of outright falsehoods. For example, many journalists have been convinced by the White House that House Democrats added the Capps Amendment to their legislation (H.R. 3200) so that the proposed government-run insurance program would be paying for elective abortions with "private funds," a claim that is a complete fabrication.

The reality is the public plan would be an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), part of the federal Executive Branch. Once the agency collects "premiums" from those enrolled, they would be as much "federal funds" as any funds collected by the IRS. Under the Capps amendment, abortionists would send their bills to DHHS and receive payment checks drawn on a federal Treasury account. It is impossible for a federal agency to expend "private funds." This is government funding of elective abortion, pure and simple.

H.R. 3200 and the Capps Amendment also wreaks havoc with private insurance plans by explicitly authorizing the proposed government premium subsidies to go to private insurance plans that cover elective abortions. These government subsidies would be federal funds that would flow directly from the federal Treasury to the insurers. No matter how Obama spins it, these are federal taxpayer dollars!

Another deception being perpetuated by Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders is that the pending legislation would not result in government funding of abortion because the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion. But the Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide law - it applies only to Medicaid funds appropriated through the annual appropriations bill that funds the DHHS. None of the funds that would be expended by the public plan, and none of the funds that will subsidize the purchase of private insurance plans, will ever flow through an HHS appropriations bill. Thus, none of the funds in these health care plans will be covered by the Hyde Amendment.

"It is important to keep in mind that throughout his career as a Illinois state senator, Barack Obama consistently opposed all limitations on government funding of elective abortion," said Armacost.

During his presidential campaign, Obama expressed strong opposition to the Hyde Amendment. Some segments of the media have reported that Obama endorsed the concept that the government should not fund abortion during an interview with Katie Couric that was broadcast on July 21. But Obama said no such thing! Instead, he said, "we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care."

As Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee observed, "He did not endorse the "tradition." While it is true there is such a tradition, it is a tradition that Obama has always opposed and the health care reform bills he is promoting would shatter that tradition."

Read Sue Armacost's post on Life Voice Blog.

Get the facts on Obama's health care plan at No2Obamacare.com.

ObamaCare: Abortion Lies

I expect Obama to tell many, many lies during his prime time address to a joint session of Congress.

When it comes to abortion, he's been lying about his health care plan. Whether in statements to the press or in what he says at his carefully orchestrated town hall meetings, Obama lies about abortion.

I will be floored if Obama tells the truth about abortion when he hijacks prime time once again.

From Wisconsin Right to Life:

Obamacare is the most dangerous threat to the right to life since Roe v. Wade. Despite fabrications from the White House, this legislation would force federal funding of abortion - a fact confirmed by the Associated Press, FactCheck.org, Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal.

All of these news sources agree with the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) and other leading right-to-life organizations that the health care bills backed by the Obama White House will result in government funding of abortion.

And, the structure and substance of Obamacare inevitably leads to the conclusion that rationing will eventually occur if Obamacare becomes law.

The unborn, the elderly and those with disabilities have much to fear with Obamacare.

Barbara L. Lyons
Executive Director

On Life Voice Blog, Barbara Lyons writes:

It will be interesting to see what the President comes up with next to sell his health care reform package. Here is what we will be watching for:

1. Even if Obama jettisons the government-run health care system (the public option), he will likely want to provide subsidies for the uninsured who meet certain financial requirements. Remember, the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortions, will not apply to these subsidies. Will there be abortion coverage? And, will Obama be forthright about whether there is or not?

2. If Obama jettisons the end-of-life counseling provision still in H.R. 3200, rationing is not automatically eliminated. We still must be concerned about the high cost of any plan without sustainable revenues, cuts in Medicare, and regulations for insurance companies which will either mandate or deny certain treatments.

Why is Obama speaking to the nation tonight?

He wants to sell the public on his government-run health care plan.

The public has rejected it so Obama will have to make significant changes and concessions to win over citizens wary of his health care overhaul.

Do you think Obama is willing to make such changes? Do you think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the fringe Left base are willing to accept compromises?

No way.

Obama will have to hide the truth of his health care plan. He'll have to deceive Americans.

Don't be fooled.

ObamaCare, Abortion, and Lies

From Wisconsin Right to Life:

"First it was the Associated Press, then FactCheck.org and now Time Magazine. All of them agree with the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) and other leading right-to-life organizations that the health care bills backed by the Obama White House will result in government funding of abortion," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life.

On August 19, 2009, Obama said that it is "not true" and a "fabrication" to say that his health plan "will mean government funding of abortion." But it is the President of the United States who is the real fabricator.

NRLC and WRTL have been pointing out for months that both H.R. 3200 in the House and the "Affordable Health Choices Act" in the Senate would create huge new federal programs that would cover abortion for any reason:

Both bills would result in government funding of abortion. FactCheck.org reported in an August 21, 2009 analysis, "Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans." FactCheck.org also wrote: "Obama has said in the past that 'reproductive services' would be covered by his public plan, so it's likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits it. Low and moderate-income persons who would choose the 'public plan' would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies." This is also true of the Senate bill.

On August 5, AP blew the cover off a phony abortion "compromise" that was crafted and passed in the House Energy and Commerce Committee to allow supporters of Obamacare to "claim" that a compromise on abortion acceptable to both sides had been reached. The AP headline said it all: "Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion." In describing the phony "compromise", NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said, "It's a sham. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan."

The AP story also exposed another ruse being used by pro-abortion supporters of Obamacare .. that the Hyde Amendment would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion in the plan. AP explained that "the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the [Hyde] restrictions."

Time Magazine this week has joined AP and FactCheck.org in concluding that Obamacare allows taxpayer funding of abortion. "The health-care reform proposed by the House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government's role in the financing of abortions," said Time. The article went on to say, "So, in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage." Time concluded by saying, "the new system differs markedly from the old federal policy of not involving the government in abortion services."

NRLC's Johnson expands further: "Federal agencies receive funds from many sources, but once the government has the money and is writing the checks, they are public funds, federal funds. And if they are spent on abortions, then that is government funding of abortion."

"Obama and his pro-abortion allies in Congress want health care reform to include government-funded abortion but they don't want to admit it to the American public who oppose federally-funded abortions by wide margins," said Armacost. "So instead, they brazenly and falsely misrepresent the abortion-related components of health care legislation to the American people. The right-to-life movement will not rest until abortion is explicitly excluded from the plan."

Obama has to stop lying about abortion and his health care government takeover plan. He's embarrassing himself.

ObamaCare WOULD Cover Abortion

Question: Do Catholic Charities USA, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association still want ObamaCare to become law?

Will these Catholic groups continue to urge people to contact their legislators to keep up the momentum for ObamaCare?

I hope now that it's clear what ObamaCare would mean for the unborn these organizations will fight AGAINST the passage of Obama's government-run health care plan.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and help shape national policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.

"We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "We don't want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion."

Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said abortion opponents "want an abortion ban in private insurance, and that's not neutrality at all—that's a radical departure from current law. They want something far more extreme than where I think the American public is."

A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

"It's a sham," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "It's a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan."

Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever—not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother—to be offered through the insurance exchange.

"With all due respect, not everyone adheres to what the Catholic bishops believe," said Capps, who supports abortion rights. "Our country allows for both sides, and our health plan should reflect that as well."

For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered.

A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.

But the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.

The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.

The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.

Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.

Clearly, unless the health care bill specifically states that taxpayers would not subsidize abortion, it's a given that taxpayer funds would be used to slaughter the unborn, denying them the right to life.

Obama's government-run health care scheme would mean that taxpayers would be paying to kill innocent human beings.

I hope that Catholic Charities USA, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Catholic Health Association organize a campaign to oppose ObamaCare.

Time for a revised action alert.