Subscribe Now!


News & Views

Volume 37, Number 4-5                                                                                                                                                                       April/May 2010

Democratic-controlled Congress enacts
Obama-backed health care bill, but the fight goes on

WASHINGTON (May 4, 2010)—With a strong push from President Obama, in March Democrats in Congress won enactment of a massive health care restructuring bill, without protections needed to prevent expansions of abortion, and with provisions that will lead to large-scale rationing of lifesaving medical treatments.

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama and
pro-abortion House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.)

Opponents, including the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), vowed to make lawmakers’ votes on the legislation a major issue in the November election, and to fight for drastic modification or repeal of the legislation in future congresses.

Some of the most dangerous provisions do not take full effect until 2014 or later,” explained NRLC Executive Director David N. O’Steen. “So there is a real opportunity for a later Congress to repeal the legislation before then or to prevent the most damaging parts of the legislation from going into effect.”

No Republican voted for the final bill in either the Senate or the House. The legislation ultimately won the votes of every Senate Democrat, and 87% of the House Democrats. The Democrats currently control 59 seats in the 100-member Senate, and hold a 77-seat majority in the 435-member House.

In 2007, while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president, Obama pledged to Planned Parenthood that he would propose health care legislation that would create a national health plan (“public plan”) that would cover abortion, and would compel private plans to cover abortion. The bills introduced by congressional Democratic leaders in mid-2009 contained numerous pro-abortion provisions, and would have fulfilled both of Obama’s promises.


Nebraska Passes Landmark Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

By Dave Andrusko

Combining years of planning, enthusiastic grassroots support, the backing of key legislators, and the invaluable help of National Right to Life, Nebraska has passed the landmark “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” Pro-life Gov. Dave Heineman signed LB 1103 into law on April 13 following passage by the unicameral Nebraska legislature on a vote of 44-5.

NRLC State Legislative Director Mary Spaulding Balch summarized the thrust of the law in just nine words: “You don’t kill unborn children capable of feeling pain.” The law, basing its conclusion on an enormous body of medical research, sets the demarcation at which the unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks.

The law does not go into effect until October 15. Pro-abortion organizations such as the Center for Reproductive Rights, have grumbled about possibly challenging the law in court. If such lawsuit were brought, it might be on behalf of, or in addition to, LeRoy Carhart, who specializes second and third trimester abortions. Carhart was a party to two abortion cases that were decided by the United States Supreme Court.



From the President

Wanda Franz, Ph.D.


By Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

The National Right to Life Committee is committed to protecting the lives of innocent persons from conception to natural death. Thus, our mission ranges from defending the unborn from abortion to protecting older people and those with disabilities from euthanasia. One form of involuntary euthanasia occurs when people are denied health care that they need to save their lives.

Denial of lifesaving care occurs when rationing of health care is imposed in order to cut costs. Such cases of care denial have been reported in many countries with government-run health care programs, especially those in Canada and England. Care is rationed by simply denying the use of expensive newer drugs and denying or delaying therapies—especially for elderly patients. Data from Canada and England indicate that the survival rates for many illnesses are much lower than in the United States where the drugs and therapies are readily available.

One of the worst fears of the elderly is that they will not be able get the medical care they need because it isn’t considered “cost-effective” by someone else. This has never been a widespread problem in the United States. However, is that about to change? Do pro-lifers have to worry not only about the lives of the unborn but also their own? Is our health care system about to change for the worse? The passage of the Obama Health Care Reform unfortunately has made the answers to these questions a definite “yes.”

NRLC’s Powell Center for Medical Ethics has been warning about this potential threat during the entire debate on the bill. “Over-promising plus under-funding forces rationing,” says the Director of the Center, Burke J. Balch, J.D. The history of government-run health care programs in other countries has demonstrated that they are not financially sustainable. Sooner or later such programs run out of money. As funding is limited, rationing is imposed to save money.

Read Dr. Franz's Entire Column

NRL News Archive

January 2010
February/March 2010

April/May 2010

NRL News 2009 Subject Index
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July/August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November/December 2009

NRL News 2008 Subject Index
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July/August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November/December 2008

NRL News 2007 Subject Index
January 2007
February 2007

March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007

July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007

December 2007

NRL News 2006 Subject Index
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006

April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006

December 2006

NRL News 2005 Subject Index
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005

NRL News 2004 Subject Index
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
une 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004

December 2004

NRL News 2003 Subject Index
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003

NRL News 2002 Subject Index
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002

May 2002

June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002

NRL News 2001 Subject Index
January 2001
February 2001
March 2001
April 2001
May 2001
June 2001
July 2001
August 2001
September 2001
October 2001
November 2001
December 2001

NRL News 2000 Subject Index
January 2000
February 2000
March 2000
April 2000
May 2000
June 2000
July 2000
August 2000
September 2000
October 2000
December 2000

NRL News 1999 Subject Index
January 22, 1999
February 19, 1999
March 15, 1999
April 8, 1999
May 11, 1999
June 10, 1999
July 6, 1999
August 10, 1999
September 14, 1999
October 12, 1999
November 1999
December 1999

NRL News 1998 Subject Index
January 1998
February 11, 1998
March 11, 1998
April 14, 1998
May 7, 1998
July 8, 1998
June 9, 1998
August 12, 1998
September 28, 1998
October 12, 1998
November 17, 1998
December 10, 1998

NRL News 1997 Subject Index
December 9, 1997

Subject Indexes for 1990 - 1996
NRL News 1996 Subject Index
NRL News 1995 Subject Index
NRL News 1994 Subject Index
NRL News 1993 Subject Index
NRL News 1992 Subject Index
NRL News 1991 Subject Index
NRL News 1990 Subject Index