|
|
|
|
Why the Hyde Amendment So Angers
Pro-Abortionists Part Three of Three By Dave Andrusko An acquaintance sent along a link to a notice from the pro-abortion Center for American Progress. The title of an event which it is sponsoring and will take place next week is "Separate and Unequal: The Hyde Amendment as a Civil Rights Issue." As you know the Hyde Amendment is one of the Movement's signal triumphs. Against seemingly impossible odds, in 1976 the late pro-life champion Henry Hyde was able to pass this measure which prohibits funding of abortion with money from the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Why does this so stick in the pro-abortionist's craw? For many reasons, I suspect. For one, at a minimum at least one million people --and perhaps considerably more--are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. This runs counter to the core of the anti-life philosophy: there can NEVER be enough abortions. For another, it is the model for shutting off the governmental spigot--for example, for preventing federal funds from subsidizing abortion, or insurance plans that cover abortion, in any of the new programs created by the new health care law. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.) have introduced a new bill that would permanently bar subsidies for abortion in all federal programs--the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 5939). If the Smith-Lipinski bill were enacted, it would no longer be necessary to win annual renewal of the Hyde Amendment or other such temporary bans. But pro-abortionists, or at least some of them, really have persuaded themselves that the Hyde Amendment "discriminates" against poor and indigent women because it prohibits Medicaid from paying for abortions in all but a few instances. The same online notice of next week's event concludes in hyperbole overdrive--"Anyone who cares about fighting racism and poverty must realize that attacks on abortion, and especially on abortion funding, are first and foremost attacks on poor and low-income women of color." No, they are first and foremost (a) an expression of the American people's resistance to paying to kill unborn children, and (b) an attempt to save as many lives as possible. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today todaveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |