NRL News
Page 1
October 2009
Volume 36
Issue 10

Congressional Democratic leaders push pro-abortion bills forward, under Obama’s verbal smokescreens

WASHINGTON (October 15, 2009)—Congressional Democratic leaders are pushing forward with “health care reform” bills that would create large new federal subsidies for abortion, even while President Obama and his appointees continue to assure the public that the bills would have no such effect.

At NRL News deadline, the Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, Senator Harry Reid (Nv.), was publicly predicting Senate floor action before the end of October. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) intends to bring legislation to the floor as soon as she thinks she has mustered the votes to pass it.

The Democrats hold majority control of both the House and the Senate, occupying about three-fifths of the seats in each house. President Obama has declared enactment of health care legislation to be his top domestic priority. The president and his spokespersons have made numerous public statements insisting that the legislation would not result in government funding of abortion.

In reality, however, government subsidies for abortion are woven into each of the major bills, and high-ranking congressional Democrats, with White House cooperation, have blocked NRLC-backed attempts to amend the bills to remove the pro-abortion components.

Every version of the bill also contains provisions that would result in rationing of lifesaving medical care for millions of Americans. (See “Death Spiral,” page 1.)

House Bill: Pro-Abortion Capps Amendment

In the House, three committees have approved versions of a massive health care restructuring bill, H.R. 3200. All three committees rejected the major amendments offered by pro-life lawmakers.

One panel, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, under the direction of pro-abortion Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.), adopted an amendment sponsored by pro-abortion Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.). Waxman and Capps claimed the amendment was a “compromise” that would preserve the “status quo” on federal abortion policy, but NRLC and other pro-life groups labeled the Capps Amendment as a “phony compromise” that would actually enact key pro-abortion policy goals.

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson explained, “Under the Capps-Waxman Amendment, the Obama Administration would be explicitly authorized to pay for all abortions under the big new federal insurance program called the ‘public option.’ Abortionists would send bills for abortions to the federal Department of Health and Human Services, and they would receive payment checks drawn on a federal Treasury account. The funds in this account would be, of course, government funds. This would be direct federal government funding of abortion, pure and simple.”

In addition, H.R. 3200 would establish a new federal program to provide subsidies (called “affordability credits”) to help tens of millions of Americans purchase health insurance. Under the Capps-Waxman Amendment, these subsidies could be used to purchase private insurance plans that cover elective abortions. While the amendment says that the private insurers are not supposed to count the cost of the abortions against the amount they receive in federal subsidies, Johnson said this was “a bookkeeping sham to conceal the reality—taxpayer subsidies for plans that cover abortion on demand, a drastic departure from longstanding federal policy.”

(For additional information on the abortion-related problems with H.R. 3200, see “Key Points on Pro-Abortion Provisions in Obama-Backed Health Care Bills” on page 21 of this issue.)

At NRL News deadline, House Speaker Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, in consultation with the White House, were putting together a new version of H.R. 3200 behind closed doors.

On September 28, Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mi.), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, sent a letter to Pelosi, cosigned by 24 other Democrats and 158 Republicans, urging Pelosi to allow a House floor vote on an amendment (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) to prevent federal government funding for abortion and abortion-covering plans.

The signers told Pelosi that H.R. 3200, with the Capps Amendment, “radically departs from the current federal government policy of not paying for elective abortion or subsidizing plans that cover abortion. None of the bills reported out of the three committees of jurisdiction have addressed our serious concerns about public funding for abortion.”

At NRL News deadline, however, all indications suggested that Pelosi intends to block the House from voting on any genuine pro-life amendment—setting the stage for a confrontation on a key procedural vote.

Before the House takes up any bill, it must first approve by majority vote a resolution (called “the rule”) issued by the House Rules Committee, which is a tool of the Speaker. The “rule” specifies which amendments, if any, may be considered on the House floor.

“There are many of us Democrats in the House who are philosophically, legally, and morally opposed to public funding for abortions,” Stupak told CNSNews.com. “We want the chance to offer our amendment, the Hyde Amendment, on the floor of the House. ... If our amendment is not made in order we will try to shut down the ‘rule,’ preventing the health care bill from coming to the floor for a vote.”

The Democrats currently have a majority of 256–177 in the House. Since not a single Republican is currently supporting H.R. 3200, this means that as few as 40 Democrats could block the bill from coming to the House floor by withholding their support from the “rule.”

Abortion in Senate Bills

In the Senate, two different com-mittees have approved two different health care bills, each of which contains pro-abortion components. At NRL News deadline, Senate Majority Leader Reid and other key Democratic senators, in consultation with the White House, were working on melding the bills together into a new bill. Reid will then bring the new bill to the Senate floor where it will be subject to further amendment, a process that may begin as soon as late October.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved S. 1679 on July 15, on a party-line vote. In many respects, S. 1679 resembles H.R. 3200, including provisions to create a nationwide health insurance program operated directly by the federal government (the “public plan”). It also contains provisions that would have pro-abortion effects even more sweeping than H.R. 3200.

“The HELP Committee bill would result in federally mandated coverage of abortion by nearly all health plans, federally mandated recruitment of abortionists by local health networks, and nullification of many state abortion laws,” said NRLC’s Johnson. “It would also result in federal funding of abortion on a massive scale.”

On October 13, the Senate Finance Committee approved an alternative bill, the “America’s Healthy Future Act,” crafted under the direction of pro-abortion Finance Committee Chairman Senator Max Baucus (D-Mt.), after first rejecting all pro-life amendments to the bill.

As approved, the bill would provide subsidies for private health plans that cover elective abortions, a sharp departure from current federal law. The Baucus bill does not contain a “public plan,” but many congressional observers expect it to be added at a later stage in the legislative process, since the public plan is supported by President Obama and by most Democratic members of Congress.

Both the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee rejected amendments offered by pro-life senators to remove the pro-abortion components of the bills, including an amendment offered by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to prohibit federal subsidies for plans that cover elective abortions.

Of the 26 Democratic senators on the two committees, only two (Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Kent Conrad of of North Dakota) voted for the anti-abortion-subsidy amendment. All of the 20 Republicans on the two panels supported the amendment, except for Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Both committees also rejected amendments to codify a temporary law (the “Hyde-Weldon Amendment”) prohibiting any level of government from discriminating against health care providers who do not wish to participate in providing abortions.

NRLC’s Johnson commented, “Since both Senate committees rejected the pro-life amendments, the combination bill that Majority Leader Reid soon brings to the Senate floor will surely contain major pro-abortion provisions. Pro-life citizens should convey to their senators their strong opposition to the health care legislation.”

In an October 13 statement, Senator Hatch said, “I will fight tooth and nail to make sure once this bill gets to the floor it is clear in the language that taxpayers’ dollars will not be used to fund abortions through the new programs nor through subsidies created in the bill.”

Hatch said that he would also continue to fight to add the conscience-protection language that was rejected in committee.

Following the rejection of the pro-life amendments in the Finance Committee, on October 8 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to members of Congress saying, “We remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”

Obama Disinformation

Even while Democratic chairmen of five congressional committees blocked pro-life amendments to the health care bills, President Obama and his spokespersons have repeatedly assured the public that he does not intend for federal funds to be used for abortions.

For example, during a televised speech to both houses of Congress on September 9, Obama said, “One more misunderstanding I want to clear up—under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

Four days later, that statement was reiterated by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on ABC News’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos pressed Sebelius, “So you’re saying it will go beyond what we have seen so far in the House [the Capps Amendment] and explicitly rule out any public funding for abortion?” Sebelius answered, “Well, that’s exactly what the President said and I think that’s what he intends that the bill he signs will do.”

More recently, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs twice dismissed pro-life concerns with a claim that federal law already prohibits any funding of abortion. (See sidebar, “The Hyde Amendment Myth,” on page 19.)

NRLC’s Douglas Johnson commented, “For months, the President, his staff, and his congressional allies have misrepresented actual language in their bills that would result in government funding of elective abortions. The reality is that the bills they are pushing would sharply break with decades of federal policy on abortion, and would put the federal government into the business of funding abortions both directly in the public plan, and through subsidies for private insurance that covers abortion. We say, watch what they are doing, not what they are saying.”

Johnson noted that three national public opinion polls conducted during September all showed strong public opposition to funding of abortion in government health programs.

“President Obama and top congressional Democrats are trying to smuggle big new pro-abortion programs into federal law, behind smokescreens of contrived language and outright misrepresentation, precisely because they know how unpopular the substance of these proposals really is,” Johnson said.

(A chart that summarizes the recent poll results appears on pages 8-9 and is posted at http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/AHCPollsSummary.pdf)

Resources

For a summary of the abortion-related problems with H.R. 3200 and with the “Affordable Health Choices Act” (S. 1679), see “Key Points on Pro-Abortion Provisions in Obama-Backed Health Care Bills” on page 21 of this issue. (This factsheet can also be downloaded from the NRL webpage at http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.html, along with additional documentation on this issue.)

For always-current information on the status of the health care legislation, check in frequently at www.nrlactioncenter.com.

For the latest in videos, news coverage of interest, and downloadable resources, go to http://stoptheabortionagenda.com.

To take action on this crucial issue, see the Action Alert on the back cover of this issue.

The “Hyde Amendment Myth”

As explained in the article “Congressional Democratic leaders push pro-abortion bills forward” (page 1), Democratic leaders in Congress have added language to health care bills (the Capps Amendment) that they claim would preserve the “status quo” on federal abortion policy, but that in fact would create two big new federal programs that would subsidize coverage of elective abortion.

At the same time, President Obama and many other top Democrats have suggested that abortion should not be an issue at all on the bill, arguing that there is already a law that prohibits federal funding of abortion—the Hyde Amendment—and that they do not intend to “repeal” this law.

NRL has labeled this claim “the Hyde Amendment myth,” because the Hyde Amendment would not apply in any way to the new programs that the health care legislation would create.

The Hyde Amendment is a provision that is contained in the annual appropriations bill for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The amendment prohibits any funds in the bill from being used directly for abortions, or to pay for a health plan that covers elective abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. The biggest effect of the Hyde Amendment was to stop funding of elective abortions through the federal Medicaid program, which had been paying for 300,000 elective abortions annually before the Hyde Amendment took effect in 1977.

Health care bills approved by committees of the House and Senate would establish a nationwide health insurance program run entirely by the federal government (the “public plan”), and authorize that program to pay for elective abortions out of funds in the U.S. Treasury. None of the “public plan” funds would flow through the annual HHS appropriations bill, and thus none of them would be covered by the Hyde Amendment.

In addition, all versions of the health care legislation would create big new subsidy programs to help tens of millions of Americans buy health insurance, and would allow these subsidies to go to plans that cover elective abortion. None of these premium subsidies would be subject to the annual appropriations process or to the Hyde Amendment.

(An NRL memorandum demonstrating that the Hyde Amendment would not curb government funding of abortion under the health care bills is posted on the NRL website at http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoHydeAmendmentWillNotApply.html.)

Although these facts are well understood among knowledgeable members of both parties on Capitol Hill, that has not stopped President Obama and other top Democrats from repeatedly invoking the Hyde Amendment to suggest that concerns about the health care bills are unfounded.

For example, on August 20, Obama said, “There are no plans under health reform to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions. Nobody is talking about changing that existing provision, the Hyde Amendment. Let’s be clear about that. It’s just not true.”

In early October, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs twice invoked the Hyde Amendment to deflect questions about the abortion-related components of the health care bills.

At a White House press briefing on October 7, Fred Lucas, a reporter for CNS News, quoted the following statement from a letter to Congress from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “So far the health reform bills considered in the committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met the President’s challenge of barring the use of federal dollars for abortion.”

Gibbs responded, “Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.”

Lucas again raised the question at an October 9 White House briefing, noting that “the Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde Amendment would not apply to the health care bill ...” Gibbs insisted that “there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion ... I think that law is exceedingly clear.”

NRL Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented, “The President and his spokespersons continue to engage in gross distortions and misrepresentations regarding the abortion-related components of the health care bills, and one of those distortions is the ‘Hyde Amendment myth.’ There is no current federal law that would prevent the new programs created by the pending health care bills from paying for abortion on demand—and the White House knows this full well. Only language written directly into the bills would prevent government funding of abortions—but such language has been blocked by the Democratic chairmen of five congressional committees, with White House cooperation, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is refusing to allow the House to even vote on adding a true Hyde Amendment to the health care bill.”

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a release, “Contrary to recent misleading comments from some sources, this and other health care reform bills appropriate their own funds outside the scope of the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bills, and so are not covered by the Hyde amendment that prevents those bills from funding abortion coverage. This legislation needs its own provision against such funding.”