Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label Federal Funding for Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Funding for Abortion. Show all posts

Monday, June 27, 2011

Planned Parenthood Takes on the States

 A majority of Americans tell pollsters they do not want taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions

By Charmaine Yoest and Denise M. Burke

The state of Indiana—and, by extension, 49 other states and the American taxpayer—is under siege from Planned Parenthood, the nation's abortion super-provider, and its allies in the Obama administration. Indiana is being threatened with the loss of federal funding for health care and being held up to scorn as having "declared war on women."

Indiana's crime? Last month it became the first state to prohibit all health-care contracts with and grants to any "entity" that performs abortions or operates a facility where abortions are performed. The law applies to state funds and to federal funds administered by the state, including money for Medicaid. Other states have been moving in the same direction.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Louisiana Passes Opt-Out Bill Voiding ObamaCare’s Abortion Mandate

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

he Louisiana State House
successfully has passed a measur
e that will make “the Bayou State” the fourth in the nation to opt-out of the abortion mandates of the recently enacted national health care reform.

Democrats and Republicans in the state Senate approved HB 1247, the Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act, authored by Representative Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe), by an overwhelming majority of 28 – 3 on Monday.

H.R. 1247 prohibits abortion coverage by health insurers in the state-run health insurance exchange that is scheduled to go into effect in 2014 as part of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law. A provision of the national law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, gives states the explicit right to ban health insurance companies receiving public subsidies under the state health exchange, from providing abortion coverage.

The Louisiana measure has just one exception for insurance companies, permitting abortion in cases where mother’s life is in danger from “a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury” including “a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.” The law does not permit the killing of unborn children conceived in situations of rape and incest.

The Senate made some changes to the House bill, and therefore the state’s House of Representatives is expected to hold a vote within the next few days to approve the amended bill.

The bill’s original form as passed by the House would have banned all health insurance providers in Louisiana from offering policies and plans that would pay for abortions. However the Senate committee amended the bill to apply to only those health insurers participating in the state exchanges mandated by the federal health care reform.

In a telephone interview with, Benjamin Clapper, Executive Director of Louisiana Right to Life Federation, said that while the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, which amended the House bill, did not allow them to ban private health insurers from providing coverage for abortions, he was not aware of any insurers that cover abortions in Louisiana anyway.

“It won’t change much right now, but we certainly would have preferred that and the abortion opt out,” he said. “But the committee did not allow us to do that.”

Clapper said that the Bioethics Defense Fund did the heavy lifting of drafting the opt-out legislation, but the model opt-out legislation from the National Right to Life Committee gave them the idea of also banning abortion coverage by private insurers.

After the Senate’s changes have been approved by the House, the bill will be sent to the desk of Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is expected to sign the measure.

In a separate statement, Clapper praised the Louisiana legislature for taking the opt-out bill over “its final major hurdle,” saying that state lawmakers representing the will of the people of Louisiana, “have resoundingly sent a message to our nation that abortion is not health care."

"Once HB 1247 has been stamped by the House and signed by the Governor, we will be at least the 4th state to opt out of abortion subsidies since the President signed his national health care reform bill into law three short months ago on March 23rd,” said Clapper. “We have helped initiate a growing state-by-state movement declaring that health care reform should not be used to expand abortion."

Lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, and Tennessee have enacted similar opt-out language for their respective states. Missouri legislators have also passed their own opt-out bill, which is awaiting their governor’s signature. Opt-out language was passed by lawmakers in Oklahoma and Florida, but then vetoed by their respective governors.

Oklahoma’s Gov. Brad Henry delayed his veto of his state’s opt-out bill to the point where the legislature had no time to mount another veto override effort and conclude pressing budgetary matters before the end of the legislative session. Gov. Charlie Crist, who scrubbed the pro-life section of his independent campaign for governor, also vetoed opt-out legislation that also would have required women to receive an ultrasound before going in for an abortion.

Friday, March 26, 2010

States Consider Legislative Plan to Opt-Out of ObamaCare’s Abortion Mandate

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

ors in over a dozen states are considering a pro-life plan that would opt their states out of a major abortion mandate in the health care reform bill passed last Sunday.

The legislation, developed by Americans United for Life (AUL), intends to take the abortion-health care fight to the states. It exploits a provision in the Senate health care bill that explicitly allows the state-run health insurance exchanges to prevent federal money from subsidizing health insurance companies that offer co-pays for abortion.

The proposed model legislation is called the “Federal Abortion-Mandate Opt-Out Act.” In a statement, Charmaine Yoest, President of AUL, said AUL’s legal team would work with state leaders to tailor legislation to each state’s particular needs.

“The states are very interested in this, we are getting inundated with requests for the language,” said Mary Harned, a health care expert on AUL’s legal team, in a telephone interview with (LSN).

“This legislation is explicitly allowed in the language of the health care reform bill. So it is definitely something that is appropriate and that can be done,” continued Harned. “We will certainly see some opposition to the bill in the state legislatures.”

The legislation also cites federal court precedents that would support any state’s decision to prohibit federal subsidies to abortion-providing health insurers. The bill states the “decision not to fund abortion places no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy” and that “it is permissible for a State to engage in unequal subsidization of abortion and other medical services to encourage alternative activity deemed in the public interest.”

The model bill also cites an analysis of the Guttmacher Institute that showed that women are more likely to opt for abortion, when it is subsidized with taxpayer dollars, especially in the case of women on Medicaid.

AUL informed in an e-mail that so far state legislators from Kansas, Georgia, Delaware, Kentucky, California, Oregon, South Carolina, New Mexico, Ohio, Maine, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Maryland had contacted them regarding how to enact opt-out legislation in their own states. AUL said they have received hundreds of similar requests via e-mail and are still sorting through them.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

White House Preparing to Ram Through Abortion Expanding Health Care with Budget Bill

New Plan to be revealed as early as Sunday or Monday - would only require 51-vote majority

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

Pro-life leaders on Capitol Hill are once again rolling up their sleeves for the health care fight after the White House announced it would publish a compromise bill as soon as Sunday to push through abortion-expanding health care.

In a New York Times report Thursday, Democratic officials confirmed that President Obama's proposal was being designed for attachment to a budget bill, which would require only a 51-vote majority in the Senate through a process known as budget reconciliation.

If the new legislation (which is essentially a package of compromises to satisfy House Democrats) passes, the House would be forced to swallow whole the health bill the Senate passed in December. The House-passed bill, which included the Stupak language barring government monies from funding abortion, would be completely discarded in favor of the abortion-expanding Senate bill.

While Democrats originally intended to ram through a reconciled version of the House and Senate bills, that plan was dropped after Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown's win in January unexpectedly snatched away the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof majority.

Officials told the NYT that the president would post the new plan on the Internet by Monday morning. A Congressional Quarterly report claimed the release could come as early as Sunday.

The reception by Congressional Democrats of Obama's proposal is not yet certain: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel that she could not agree to a proposal until the end of the recess. House Democrats are expected to meet Monday evening.

The White House also threw down the gauntlet to Republicans, inviting party lawmakers to a televised summit Feb 25 to discuss the GOP's solutions for health care reform. "I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama told CBS's Katie Couric earlier this month. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table."

Republicans have countered that their own proposal for health care reform has been publicly available for months, while the White House has all but completely shut out GOP members from negotiations throughout the long health care push. Michael Steele, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, blasted the proposed summit as "an infomercial" to push the unpopular bill.

“How will they incorporate our ideas? Will they abandon their plans to jam through their latest backroom deal?" asked Steele. "Or is this just an infomercial for the same government takeover of health care that the American people have rejected again and again?”

In a letter to Rahm Emanuel this month, Boehner and Republican Whip Eric Cantor wrote: "We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats."

Once again, the question of abortion funding is poised to throw a wrench in the delicate scheme: a Capitol Hill Democrat admitted to the Times that abortion remains "a wild card" for the health bill's future. The House bill passed by a razor-thin margin, relying on votes that insiders say will vanish when faced with a bill that lacks Hyde-amendent protection against abortion funding.

In an interview with last week, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, expressed certainty that pro-life Democrat representatives would hold out for a Hyde-amendment ban on abortion funding.

"They will. I’ve talked to many of them," said Smith. "They have hardened their position. I think they’ve seen how noble their position is. They are not going to go for a phony compromise. They are not going to go for weakening language no matter how cleverly it is presented."

Just before the Senate passed its health bill last year, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), the final Democrat holding out against the bill and citing opposition to abortion funding, suddenly reversed his decision and endorsed a bill without the Stupak language.

Leaders in the Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition urged pro-lifers to contact their senators and representatives urging opposition against the vast abortion expansion the health bill promises.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Taxpayers Fund Abortions but not School Vouchers

From OneNewsNow
By Dr. Paul Kengor

In my last article, a somber remembrance of Roe v. Wade, I called attention to something that shocked readers: I noted that the Obama administration and Democratic Congress "rejected funding for school vouchers for poor children in Washington, DC, but supported funding for abortions for the mothers of those children."

The contrast is breathtaking, but true. It's another jolt to traditionally minded voters — especially pro-life Democrats and independents — who voted for "change" on November 4, 2008, and are now absorbing the change they authorized. In this case, the change stands in stark contrast to previous administrations and Congresses that prohibited federal funds to finance abortions in the District of Columbia. It veers well beyond liberals' assurance that abortion merely be "safe, legal, and rare."

If you didn't hear about this until now, don't be surprised. Over 300,000 pro-lifers marched in Washington last month without notice by the mainstream media. So, I'd like to take a moment to explain what happened:

Last summer, in July 2009, the overwhelmingly Democratic House of Representatives narrowly passed (by a vote of 219-208) a bill permitting the DC government to use locally raised tax revenues to provide abortions, reversing a long-standing prohibition.

Almost all Republicans voted against the bill. They were joined by some (but not enough) Democrats. Unfortunately, because of how Americans voted on November 4, 2008, the extreme left has such a massive majority in Congress that legislators who think taxpayers shouldn't pay for abortions couldn't stop the measure from being passed. Worse, because Americans — who, in recent polls, describe themselves as more pro-life and more conservative than ever — voted for the most radical abortion-rights advocate in the history of the presidency, the bill had full backing from the White House.

And so, the change in favor of abortion funding came via a $768 million DC Financial Services Appropriations bill that — here's the kicker — also included termination of school vouchers for poor children in Washington, DC, forcing those children out of private schools and back into public schools they fled.

Most Americans didn't notice any of this, given that the mainstream media that serves as educator-in-chief didn't dare highlight the story. Two sources that did notice, however, are worth quoting:

One is Rep. Joe Pitts, the Pennsylvania congressman who is a stalwart champion for the unborn. Pitts told me: "It's shameful that Congress has decided to use taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of life in our nation's capital but has denied funding for a successful scholarship program that allows poor children a chance at a decent education. The juxtaposition in policies could not be more disturbing."

More disturbed than Pitts was Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, who was fit to be tied: "Following the lead of President Barack Obama," said Donohue, "the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow the District of Columbia to fund abortions. Also following Obama's wishes, the same bill affirmed the...congressional decision to end school vouchers there."

"Here's what it comes down to," summed up Donohue. Poor pregnant women living in Washington, DC, "will be told that if they decide to abort their baby, the government will pay for it. But if they persist in bringing their baby to term, the government will not help them to avoid the same lousy public schools that Barack and Michelle shunned for Sasha and Malia." Donohue denounced the action as "cruel."

No doubt, it's an outrage. Of course, it's also predictable. By and large, liberals oppose school vouchers but support legalized abortion. In that sense, this is nothing new.

What is new, however, is this sudden aggressive push by today's "progressives" for taxpayers to fund abortions. This is the culmination of a progressive death march begun a century ago by Planned Parenthood founder and racial eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who preached extraction of "human weeds" from the gene pool in order to advance "race improvement" (her words). Today's progressive heirs have taken Sanger's torch and lit up the barn.

And thus, we now have — in no less than the nation's capital — a poster-child for that grim progressive worldview. It's a child who doesn't get aid to go to a private school — even as his mother pays school taxes — but whose mother gets aid to abort the child's sibling.

We're not only losing our conscience as a nation; we're losing our mind.

I know the response I'll get from Democrats: furious emails, enraged at me. That's sad. I'm simply reporting what happened. I didn't vote for any of this. I plead with them: If you're angry, write to the people in your party who are responsible. Only you can stop this madness. Clean your own house.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Audacity of Deceit: Day Gardner, National Black Pro-Life Union, Comments on Obama's Bold Faced Lies Concerning Abortion and Health Care Reform

Commentary by Day Gardner

Last night, President Barack Obama claimed that abortion will not be funded through the new health care legislation.

Shouting liar, liar pants on fire, may be politically incorrect, so I'll just say Mr. President you are wrong!

On July 30, the House Energy and Commerce Committee added to H.R. 3200 an amendment written by staff to Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), both of whom have consistently pro-abortion career voting records. This "phony compromise" explicitly authorizes the "public plan" to cover all abortions. This would drastically change long-standing federal policy which means that any citizen enrolled in the public plan will be compelled to purchase coverage for abortion on demand.

Let's follow the money... the federal agency will collect the premium money, receive bills from abortionists, and send the abortionists payment checks from a federal Treasury account.

Hmmm... that sounds like abortion funding to me, Mr. President. What say you?

As the Associated Press accurately reported in its August 5, 2009, analysis, "A law called the Hyde amendment applies the [abortion] restrictions to Medicaid... The [Obama-backed] health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions."

It is paramount that language be added to the health care bill that will clearly restrict funding of any and all abortions. Members of both the Democratic and Republican parties have offered sensible amendments to the bill which you, Mr. President, have ignored.

So, President Obama, for the 29th time… abortion is not healthcare! Can you hear me now?

Day Gardner is the founder and President of The National Black Pro-Life Union and Director of Public Relations for NPLAC on Capitol Hill. She is also anchors a radio program for online and WCAR-1040AM, Detroit.

Friday, July 17, 2009

House Approves Publicly-Funded Abortions in D.C., Cans D.C. School-Vouchers

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has passed a bill that allows the District of Columbia to fund abortions and legalize the consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes, but phases out a school-voucher program designed to help lower-income class parents send their children to a school of their choice.

Despite the opposition of a coalition of pro-life Democrats and Republicans, the Financial Services Appropriations bill passed Thursday evening by a 219-208 margin. The measure allocates $768 million in federal funding for the D.C. government, but reversed a long-standing Congressional ban that prohibited the federal district from using public money to subsidize abortions for lower-income women.

The Financial Services Appropriations bill also dropped a decade-long provision that prevented the federal district from legalizing medical marijuana through the initiative process. The bill also establishes a needle-exchange program for drug-users in order to slow the spread of HIV, but slashes $50 million from the government's anti-drug media campaign, reducing its budget to $20 million.

Although lower-income families may soon have public assistance to obtain abortions, the measure eliminates by 2010 the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provided parents a voucher of $7,500 per child that gave them the freedom to send their children to the private school of their choice. The policy affected the education of 1,716 low-income students, but was opposed by teachers unions and the Obama Administration.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Friday, April 18, 2008

Planned Parenthood Has 'Racist Agenda,' MLK's Niece Says

By Josiah Ryan

The niece of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., is among a group of pro-life black leaders calling for an end to federal funding for Planned Parenthood because of what she calls Planned Parenthood's "racist agenda."

"Planned Parenthood is definitely a racist organization - they have a racist agenda," Dr. Alveda King told Cybercast News Service. "Since 1970, there has been something like 50 million abortions. About 17 million of those have been blacks. It's black genocide. They are killing our people and fooling us."

Last year, The Advocate, a student publication at the University of California - Los Angeles, placed phone calls to Planned Parenthood offices around the country offering to make donations specifically to subsidize the abortion of black babies.

The publication then posted videos on YouTube using audio recordings of calls on which Planned Parenthood officials agreed to accept race-targeted donations. Planned Parenthood officials issued an apology, stating it was not their policy to accept race-targeted donations for abortions.

In March, the National Black Pro-Life Union sent letters to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NAACP, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Congressional Black Caucus and Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.).

The letters call on these groups and Fattah to support the termination of federal funding of Planned Parenthood, which currently exceeds $300 million a year.

The National Black Pro-Life Union is a coalition of 15 African-American organizations that includes the Coalition of African-American Pastors, High Impact Leadership Coalition, and King for America, which is led by King.

According to the National Black Pro-Life Union, none of the groups contacted, as well as Fattah, have responded to the letters.

King, who is also a pastoral associate for the conservative pro-life group Priests for Life, said she was partially motivated to join the campaign to terminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood because in the early 1970s she was fooled into getting an abortion by a Planned Parenthood office that told her that her baby was "just a blob" of tissue."

There are more Planned Parenthood clinics in black neighborhoods, because there is an artificial demand, which was created by Planned Parenthood," King told Cybercast News Service. "We were told by Planned Parenthood that abortion, which is actually murder, is therapeutic."

The Planned Parenthood Federation did not respond to Cybercast News Service's multiple requests for comment.

"It's very difficult for them to understand that we are part of one race - the human race - and racism is just fighting among ourselves," said King. "Congress needs to defund Planned Parenthood for participating in this agenda right away."