Keep Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Out of Health Care

A recent article in Advertising Age deals with the Obama Administration's push for health care reform.  Writer Michael Bush begins this way:  "For a president and an administration that seemed to play the PR and communications game better than almost any that preceded them, President Barack Obama and his staff appear to have lost control of the messaging in the health-care reform debate, the first big policy test of his administration."He goes on to say that the president's opponents have managed to define the issue and lead the conversation.That's what happens when administration officials...even the president himself...and congressional leaders are coy when asked direct questions like:  would this plan require taxpayers to fund abortions. 

Initially, none of the health care bills mentioned abortion.  That allowed things to stay fuzzy until certain members of Congress, most of them female, liberal, and from the coasts, began wandering off the reservation.  A spokesman for one powerful congresswoman, Louise Slaughter of New York, told the LA Times, "The starting point for Rep. Slaughter on the health care debate was protecting abortion rights." California Representative Zoe Lofgren told her San Jose audience, "Abortion will be covered."  She added, "I think it should be."

When the House Energy and Commerce Committee took up the bill, Rep. Lois Capps, also from California, introduced what she called a "compromise" amendment. It requires that a health care plan that includes abortion be made available in every area of the country. It softens the blow by requiring that premiums paid by beneficiaries, not taxpayer funds, would be used to fund abortions. But, pro-life leaders say this amendment is a bookkeeping scheme that really amounts to an abortion edict. The Capps Amendment, or something like it, is meant to allow Democrats from conservative districts to claim they oppose an abortion mandate as they vote for heath care form that will, in reality, provide unrestricted funding of abortion.

Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." 

Twenty House members sent a letter to their Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, insisting that abortion be excluded from any "government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."  This is in keeping with current policy where federal funding for abortion is prohibited except in cases of rape and incest or where the life of the mother is threatened. But most of the plans for reform set forth a marketplace, an exchange offering a choice between private insurance coverage and a government-subsidized public plan. One side contends that women who currently have abortion coverage in their insurance plans should be able to keep it.  The other wants to protect taxpayers from having to fund abortion. Both sides want to avoid a nasty fall floor fight.  But the light that's beginning to shine on this issue should only get brighter.

A recent article in Advertising Age deals with the Obama Administration's push for health care reform.  Writer Michael Bush begins this way:  "For a president and an administration that seemed to play the PR and communications game better than almost any that preceded them, President Barack Obama and his staff appear to have lost control of the messaging in the health-care reform debate, the first big policy test of his administration."          He goes on to say that the president's opponents have managed to define the issue and lead the conversation.          That's what happens when administration officials...even the president himself...and congressional leaders are coy when asked direct questions like:  would this plan require taxpayers to fund abortions. 

Initially, none of the health care bills mentioned abortion.  That allowed things to stay fuzzy until certain members of Congress, most of them female, liberal, and from the coasts, began wandering off the reservation.  A spokesman for one powerful congresswoman, Louise Slaughter of New York, told the LA Times, "The starting point for Rep. Slaughter on the health care debate was protecting abortion rights." California Representative Zoe Lofgren told her San Jose audience, "Abortion will be covered."  She added, "I think it should be."

When the House Energy and Commerce Committee took up the bill, Rep. Lois Capps, also from California, introduced what she called a "compromise" amendment.      It requires that a health care plan that includes abortion be made available in every area of the country. It softens the blow by requiring that premiums paid by beneficiaries, not taxpayer funds, would be used to fund abortions. But, pro-life leaders say this amendment is a bookkeeping scheme that really amounts to an abortion edict. The Capps Amendment, or something like it, is meant to allow Democrats from conservative districts to claim they oppose an abortion mandate as they vote for heath care form that will, in reality, provide unrestricted funding of abortion.

Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." 

Twenty House members sent a letter to their Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, insisting that abortion be excluded from any "government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."  This is in keeping with current policy where federal funding for abortion is prohibited except in cases of rape and incest or where the life of the mother is threatened. But most of the plans for reform set forth a marketplace, an exchange offering a choice between private insurance coverage and a government-subsidized public plan. One side contends that women who currently have abortion coverage in their insurance plans should be able to keep it.  The other wants to protect taxpayers from having to fund abortion.         Both sides want to avoid a nasty fall floor fight.  But the light that's beginning to shine on this issue should only get brighter.

That's my view...and I'm Penna Dexter...for Moody Radio