Chart below is from the American Life League:

And one senior Democrat thinks even the Stupak amendment language will be stripped out of the bill.  From The Hill:

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):


(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.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Thanks for subscribing!
  1. Shane, you have highlighted the following lines:

    (A) withhold or withdraw of medical treatment or medical care;

    (B) withhold or withdraw of nutrition or hydration; and

    I understand the opposition to situations like the Schiavo case, but do you think it is wrong to withhold or withdraw medical treatment on someone? Especially if they have a living will, or have made their wishes known to the family members who are now making decisions when they no longer can.

    Just a little background, I was an ICU nurse for 6 years. I have withdrawn care on many people and watched many pass away. When patients no longer want to put themselves through a living hell that is much of modern lifeprolonging medicine, they should have the right to say “stop”. When they can no longer make that call, we have established the family as the people who have the right to make the call in the patients absence. I see nothing wrong with that.

    Now with holding nutrition/fluids may be a different issue, if they have days to wait till they pass. Nearly all of the cases I was involved with patients had mins or hours to live after withdrawing treatment, the lack of food or fluids during that time does not affect the patient.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Rod Blum Votes for Late-Term Abortion Ban

Congressman Rod Blum (R-Iowa) joined a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Where Were the Marines in Egypt, Libya and Yemen?

Our embassy in Cairo, Egypt was breached and a flag stolen and…

Keeping The American People Safe – Our First Responsibility

David Young: We are in a very dangerous position as we consider opening our doors to those escaping violence in Syria and Iraq.

Justice Department: Tolerance Trumps Freedom

Department of Justice’s brief arguing against a Romeike Rehearing said German laws banning homeschooling are to create an “open, pluralistic society.”