NRLC Battles to
Prevent Health Care Reform From Funding Abortion
to Vote in September on Obama-Backed
WASHINGTON (August 6, 2009)--President Obama and top Democratic congressional leaders are pushing hard for enactment of sweeping “health care reform” bills that would greatly expand abortion in America. The bills even create a nationwide insurance plan to cover elective abortions, run by the federal government.
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are expected to vote on the bills in September.
The bills backed by the White House would also make drastic changes in the health care system that raise acute concerns about future rationing of lifesaving care, and that even open the door to government promotion of assisted suicide. (See related story on rationing issues raised by the bills, on page 1.)
National Right to Life President Wanda Franz, Ph.D., said, “Defeating the White House bills is among the most important challenges the pro-life movement has faced in Congress in many years. Pro-life citizens must make their voices heard by members of Congress, before it is too late.”
the Challenge of Health Care Rationing
With Congress preparing for floor votes on health care restructuring this fall, we must guard against the grave danger of rationing lifesaving medical treatment, food, and fluids.
Since its inception, the pro-life movement has been just as committed to protecting older people and people with disabilities from euthanasia as to protecting unborn children from abortion. We have long recognized that denial of treatment, food, and fluids necessary to sustain life against the will of the patient is a form of involuntary euthanasia, and thus have fought to protect the vulnerable from rationing of health care, whether by health care providers such as hospital ethics committees or by the government.
All versions of the health care restructuring bill provide for premium subsidies to help the uninsured obtain health insurance. The problem is that the proposals under serious consideration to date fail to ensure a sustainable method of financing these subsidies (see NRLC’s webinar at http://nrlcomm.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/hcrwebinar/ and also www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/describeplan.html). Indeed, a substantial part of the subsidies, under current proposals, would be paid for by “robbing Peter to pay Paul”—reducing Medicare funding for older people in order to cover the uninsured. The dangerous consequence is that in a few years, having over-promised and under-funded, the government will be faced with the choice of adding other means of revenue or else (and far more likely) in some way imposing rationing.
Be a Part of the NRLC E-Mail List
Vol. 36, No. 7-8
From the President
AT THE PRO-LIFE GAINS
The fact that Roe v. Wade is still the Court-imposed law of the land makes some pro-lifers lament that we haven’t made any progress. They are too pessimistic. We are really facing two tasks: One is to undo Roe v. Wade. The other is to change women’s attitude about abortion.
The first is very difficult because the Supreme Court declared abortion to be a constitutional right. This right can only be removed by the Court itself or by a difficult and cumbersome constitutional amendment.
On the second front, namely changing women’s attitude about abortion, there has been considerable and sustained progress. There are statistical data for the period from 1973 to 2005. Let’s look at them as they are displayed in the three graphs, because they show that, over time, women have resorted to abortion less and less.
NRL News Archive