The Silencing of Pro-Lifers on Health Care Reform
- Nov 3, 2009 - 1
The showdown on health care reform is fast approaching. Floor votes in the House of Representatives on the mammoth 1,990-page bill (H.R. 3962), unveiled last week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), are expected to take place as early as tomorrow.
For all its weaknesses, the health care bill is expected to dodge a critical aspect of the lower chamber’s debate: meaningful debate itself. In what is shaping up to be a radical power grab, Speaker Pelosi has signaled that she does not intend to allow amendments to her health care bill, which includes a government-run plan and use of the word “shall” 3,425 times to describe the mandates in the overhaul of one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
A touchstone issue being denied a fair hearing is abortion. As introduced, H.R. 3962 would authorize federal funds to cover abortion in the government-run plan and allow federal subsidies to cover abortion in private plans. The net result: a violation of the consciences of 55 percent of Americans, who “think it would be wrong for the government to pay for abortions,” according to a recent poll, and likely the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. It also would violate President Obama’s pledge in his national address in September that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”
Many members of Congress are outraged. And rightly so. Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA), joined by a chorus of pro-life representatives, have been persistent in asking that a vote be allowed on an amendment to explicitly prohibit the government from funding abortion under the health care plan. The amendment would be modeled on the Hyde Amendment, which strictly limits federal funding of abortion through Medicaid.
Speaker Pelosi appears poised to deny that request. Under the expected proposed rule of debate, which the House must approve, no amendments would be allowed. A vote in favor of such a rule would in effect be a vote for federally-funded abortions.
The speaker is treading the waters of the health care debate carefully, concerned not about the $1 trillion price tag of reform but the magic number 218, a simple majority of representatives needed for House passage. But a pro-life bipartisan bloc in support of the pro-life amendment to prohibit abortion coverage could cause her to fall just shy of that number.
In an attempt to placate pro-life concerns, the House leadership might insert a so-called abortion compromise that only appears to limit abortion. In truth, this effort would short-circuit the meaningful Stupak-Pitts Amendment and still allow federal funds to pay for abortions.
The bottom line: House members are not even being given the opportunity to ensure that federal dollars are not used to fund abortions. Such a heavy-handed approach is thoroughly inappropriate for an issue of such magnitude. If members are not even given the opportunity to participate in determining the language of this bill, it is impossible to see this as democracy in action. This silencing is deafening.
If you agree, please contact your representative and tell him or her to vote against the rule that would bring the bill to the floor for a vote.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Citizenship, Healthcare, Human Rights
comments (post your own) feed
1 On Nov 5th, 2009, at 8:10am, Alene Roberts wrote:
My sixteen year old granddaughter wrote a poem about her day of silent solidarity. As a retired college professor, I think it is excellent and should be read by others. Please let me know if there is a way to do this.