By Dave Andrusko

Part Two looks at the rationing and euthanasia threats in the proposed Senate bill. Please send your comments on either part to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you'd like, follow me on http://twitter.com/daveha.

"So far, Reid has steered the Senate bill in a direction that abortion rights supporters can live with: allowing coverage for abortion in federally subsidized health care plans, provided that private funds are used to pay for the procedure. But abortion opponents say his compromise would gut current federal restrictions on abortion funding."
     -- From "White House at odds with bishops over abortion," an Associated Press (AP) story that ran yesterday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to Majority Leader Harry Reid, on Saturday the Senate will begin consideration of sweeping health care restructuring legislation which, as pro-lifers have explained at length, is riddled with pro-abortion language. Please go to http://nrlactioncenter.com to get the complete background on the language inserted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid into the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," and directions how to contact your two senators to urge them to oppose the Act because of it.

Given how thorough the information is at http://nrlactioncenter.com, there are just a couple of points I'd like to highlight.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

First, Reid and his pro-abortion cohorts were not bound to insert the pro-abortion language favored by the Obama White House and the army of pro-abortion advocacy groups. In spite of clear warnings from National Right to Life and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Reid chose not to include the Stupak-Pitts language which the House had inserted.

Just so we are clear: the Stupak-Pitts Amendment plows no new ground. By prohibiting both direct federal funding of abortion by the "public option" and the use of federal subsidies to purchase private plans that cover elective abortion, the Amendment merely maintained longstanding federal policy on abortion-funding.

Of course that is precisely why pro-abortionists want it deleted. They ardently desire coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.

Second, as bad as the House bill was before amended, the Reid bill is worse. For starters, they had the advantage of the educational phase, if you will, in which pro-lifers patiently pointed out to Congress the path down which it oughtn't to go. Well, Reid blew off those polite warnings at the same time he pretends to be heeding them.

Naturally the White House fell all over itself praising Reid for his alleged statesmanship. In the words of White House health reform director Nancy Ann DeParle, the Senate bill "was carefully worked through by the leader, who cares a lot about making sure this maintains the status quo on abortion policy." The AP paraphrased DeParle as saying "Reid struck just the right balance" to keep the bill "neutral on abortion."

But in that same AP story, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid's "is actually the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues." Doerflinger called it "completely unacceptable," adding that "to say this reflects current law is ridiculous."

Please read go to http://nrlactioncenter.com and then call your two United States Senators. Time is short and the importance of your involvement at this critical stage can not be overstated.

Please send your thoughts and comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Part Two