Chart below is from the American Life League:
A House Democratic leader said Monday she’s “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.
“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we’re all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that’s the case.”
Yes the Stupak amendment does limit funding for abortion in a public option. However do not consider the health care legislation, pro-life. It expands funding for contraceptives, some of which are abortifacient. It increases funding for Planned Parenthood and that is completely unacceptable. There is no conscience clause for pro-life health care providers, and it does force pro-life firms to provide coverage for abortionists. It also makes provision for euthanasia.
For instance look at section 240 of the HR 3962 in particular subsection (d):
(d) PROHIBITION ON THE PROMOTION OF ASSISTED SUICIDE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), information provided to meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2) shall not include advanced directives or other planning tools that list or describe as an option suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing, regardless of legality.
(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to apply to or affect any option to—
(A) withhold or withdraw of medical treatment or medical care;
(B) withhold or withdraw of nutrition or hydration; and
(C) provide palliative or hospice care or use an item, good, benefit, or service furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.
So starvation and dehydration are not considered "mercy killing” or “assisted suicide.” Really? Changing the definition doesn’t make it right. This is not pro-life. How can any pro-life advocates give this a pass? Then getting to the Senate version we see it still doesn’t contain any language barring funding of abortion.
This ultimately is a bad bill (both versions) for those who believe in the sanctity of life, even with the Stupak amendment Not to mention the plethora of other problems it contains. How to be sure we have a pro-life bill? Kill this one in the Senate, and start over and maybe actually consider the House Republican plan.
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Grassley, Ernst and Young React to Obamacare Rate Hikes - October 26, 2016
- Iowans Hit Hard with Obamacare Premium Hikes for 2017 - October 25, 2016
- Branstad, Reynolds Stump for Zach Nunn - October 24, 2016