Health care bill causes concern heading into conference committee

By Barrett Duke - Aug 7, 2007 - comment

Congress wrapped up its summer of work with a great frenzy of activity last week. Because the members worked on so many bills, some of the failings of their efforts may not receive the attention they deserve.

The SCHIP bill, a very important piece of legislation passed by both the House and Senate, is of particular concern. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program was originally passed in 1997 and has been incredibly successful, providing medical coverage for 6 million uninsured children. The program has to be renewed this year or it will come to an end.

Unfortunately, the new version of SCHIP passed by Congress is seriously flawed at a number of levels. The areas that cause the greatest concern for the ERLC are related to sanctity of life issues.

The House version of the bill, H.R. 3162, fails at two pro-life points. First, it threatens to cut back the ability of senior citizens to supplement their Medicare coverage with their own money to purchase private health insurance. This means that many senior citizens who have the ability to pay for the best insurance coverage they can get, will not be able to do so.

Second, the bill does not enable states to provide medical coverage for unborn children. Essentially, the bill does not recognize an unborn child as a separate person, but treats the unborn child as a part of the mother’s body, subject to the needs and interests of the mother. With this understanding, a woman covered by SCHIP could even get federal financial assistance for an abortion.

The version of the bill approved by the Senate, H.R. 976, doesn’t affect the ability of senior citizens to purchase private health insurance. However, it also treats unborn children as non-persons, just like the House bill.

Since the House and Senate versions of the bill are different, a conference committee will be formed to create one bill out of the two. The ERLC strongly opposes the two anti-life measures in these bills. Senior citizens shouldn’t have their medical coverage options limited by government regulation; and unborn children and their mothers should be treated as two individuals, and each should be provided all the care that any person should receive.

You may want to know how your Congressman and Senators voted on these bills:

In the Senate, all the Democrat senators were joined by the following 18 Republicans in voting for the bill: Alexander (TN), Bond (MO), Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Domenici (NM), Grassley (IA), Hatch (UT), Hutchison (TX), Lugar (IN), Murkowski (AK), Roberts (KS), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Stevens (AK), Sununu (NH), and Warner (VA).

In the House 220 Democrats were joined by 5 Republicans in voting for the bill. The 5 Republicans are: Capito (WV), Ferguson (NJ), LaHood (IL), LoBiondo (NJ), and Shays (CT). Ten Democrats voted against the bill. They are: Boren (OK), Cooper (TN), Donnelly (IN), Ellsworth (IN), Etheridge (NC), Hill (IN), Marshall (GA), McIntyre (NC), Shuler (NC), and Taylor (MS).

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Children, Elderly, Living, Health, Life, Abortion, Citizenship, Human Rights, Legislation, Science, Bioethics

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com