April 17th, 2010 by M. French

FOF’s Ashley Horne explains how the new health care bill will provide for government subsidized abortions in an article published yesterday entitled How Exactly Will the Government Fund Abortion Under the New Health Care Law?  Here’s a selection:

The truth is that even with the executive order in place, the government will still subsidize abortions under the new health care law.  Here’s how:

Starting in 2014, if a qualified person enrolls in a state-based private health insurance exchange that offers abortion coverage, the federal government will send tax dollars to that insurance provider to help offset the cost of the insurance coverage – coverage that includes abortion.

If you enroll in a taxpayer-subsidized health plan that covers abortion, the law requires you to make a separate payment of no less than $1 per month (an “abortion premium”) to the insurance company for abortion services.  It doesn’t matter that you may object to the practice of abortion.  It doesn’t matter that you may never actually have an abortion. You pay anyway. In fact, everyone who enrolls in a taxpayer-subsidized health plan that covers abortion will be paying into a pool of money – money which can only be used by the insurance company to pay out for abortion services.

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , ,

April 5th, 2010 by M. French
Dear Friends,

I’m passing on this important action announcement from our friends at the Oak Initiative.

Please read it carefully, forward it to your friends, and respond as you see fit.

Blessings and grace,

Dr. Michael Brown
Oak Logo
Urgent: North Carolina Ready to Respond to Healthcare Bill

North Carolina Government is Listening

It is important that you read this email and respond urgently. Our government officials in North Carolina are starting to listen and we must respond immediately. There are Three Actions Listed Below.

Action 1: NC Attorney General’s office states that if enough people e-mail support to join forces with the 13 states currently filing suit against the constitutionality of the HealthCare bill it will join forces with them. Please go to http://www.ncdoj.gov/Consumer/2-2-12-File-a-Complaint.aspx and e-mail them ASAP.

Please also write or call:  (Use the swiftest means available to you)

Attorney General’s Office
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
Telephone: (919) 716-6400
Fax: (919) 716-6750

Governor Bev Perdue
Office of the Governor


Action 2: This action has been requested by the head of the Department of Labor, conservative Cherri Berry. On Tuesday April 6 there will be a rally on the Bicentennial Mall in Raleigh.

Cherri Berry and Steve Troxler (Dept of agriculture) will address the crowd. They will then go into session to address the “Council of State” where the heads of all state departments will be gathered as they do each year and request that our state join the lawsuit of 13 other states against the federal government’s imposition of health care. Your phone calls and emails leading up to this event are critical.

We The People NC has arranged for buses throughout NC. Seat prices are 25.00 each. The seats are first come first served and are secured only by your payment through paypal.

All information you need and the paypal link will be updated on their website, http://wethepeoplenc.org. All inquiries go to Rick Starnes, ncknights05@yahoo.com

Keep checking their website for updates (http://wethepeoplenc.org).

Action 3: Sign the petition to repeal the healthcare bill http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/repealhealthcarebill/

Our Biblical Mandate

Click Here

Read More Articles

Click Here

The Jesus Manifesto

Click Here

To Join the Coalition

Click Here

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , ,

March 22nd, 2010 by M. French

Planned Parenthood: “Nonetheless, we regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D–MI) had insisted upon. So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban. “

Bound4Life: “Trusting in an Executive Order to protect the unborn is a bad idea. The Executive Order, while looking good, IS NOT law. The President cannot create law. If he could, he would have passed Health Care with an Executive Order. What’s more, the President can rescind the Order anytime he wants and substitute it with “softer language” or even scrap it altogether. Furthermore, any President after Obama can change the policy of the Order. (i.e. the Mexico City policy.)”

CatholicVoteAction: “In summary then, President Obama’s executive order changes almost nothing to alleviate pro-life concerns over this Act. It fully allows federal funding for abortion insurance, it cannot change the fact that CHC funds will be used for abortion, it follows HHS policy against conscience rights by utterly failing to do anything on the issue, and it does not change any of HHS’s ability under the Act to define abortion as health care. … Any pro-lifer concerned about the Act would, objectively, have the same concerns against the Act with or without this executive order.”

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , ,

November 22nd, 2009 by M. French

On November 21st, the U.S. Senate voted to proceed to Senator Harry Reid’s version of a government health care bill. The bill includes government funding for elective abortion. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins weighed in with the following:

“Forcing Americans to buy government approved health care insurance is arguably unconstitutional. Forcing Americans to fund abortion within the government plan is without question unconscionable. Disregarding the conscience concerns of the vast majority of Americans, the U.S. Senate, voted to proceed to Senator Reid’s new health care takeover bill. Recent polls including a CNN poll released last week shows more than 60% of Americans are opposed to the bill’s provisions that would create the largest expansion of abortion since the 1970s.

“Instead of including the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts amendment passed in the House to prevent this government expansion of abortion, Senator Reid included a watered down version of the Capps provision which would flood the coffers of the abortion industry. The Senate should instead adopt the Stupak-Pitts language which would maintain the status quo first established over 30 years ago. Additionally, the Reid bill undermines conscience protections for pro-life health plans and doctors.

“It was disappointing to see pro-life Senators Bill Nelson (D-NE) and Bob Casey (D-PA) vote to advance a bill that will vastly expand abortion in America with federal dollars. The burden to protect taxpayers and the unborn from a massive expansion of abortion, as provided for in this bill, now rest upon the shoulders of Senators Nelson and Casey. It is imperative that they stand on principle. ”

Over the summer I was stopped in downtown Charlotte by an Obama campaigner out soliciting support for the president’s health care bill. When I said I was unwilling to support something that would provide taxpayer-funded abortions, she assured me that it would never do such a thing. Hmmm….

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , ,

September 22nd, 2009 by M. French

Discussion on the abortion ramifications of the Senate’s Baucus health care bill is underway. From LifeNews:

The Senate Finance Committee today started its debate on the new Baucus health care bill that contains massive abortion subsidies and mandates. During the opening statements, Sen. Chuck Grassley said the bill funds abortions and that it must be amended to make sure that is not the case.

At least six pro-life amendments will be offered that address abortion funding, state laws and the conscience rights of pro-life medical professionals who do not want to be forced to perform or refer for abortions.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has introduced amendments 354, that protect the right of conscience of medical workers, and 355, which “prohibits authorized or appropriated federal funds under this Mark from being used for elective abortions and plans that cover such abortions.”

Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming is the sponsor of four pro-life amendments.

Obama did promise that the proposed health care overhaul would not publicly fund abortions, though some find those statements misleading.

Posted in Law & Politics, News Tagged with: , , , , , ,

July 20th, 2009 by Marc Thomas

Video from JillStanek.com:

Earlier this week, Senator Mikulski got herself into a tight spot when introducing government plans on state-funded healthcare. Questions were raised by Senator Orrin Hatch about whether or not the new scheme would include ‘tax-payer funded abortion.’

Mikulski, seemingly unwilling to mention abortion, took a dance around the term instead employing terms such as ‘planned parenthood’ and ‘woman’s health clinics including comprehensive service.’

In the interest of a balanced view of the facts, we must add that she did go on to say, “… it would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.”

The Governmental takeover of healthcare is not yet a reality in America, but across the other side of the Atlantic, Britain’s National Health Service has recently surpassed its 61st birthday.

According to UK law, abortion is technically legal up until the 25th week of pregnancy (non-inclusive.) However, a law introduced in 1967 (the 1967 Abortion Act) sets out two very specific criterion for Abortion under the NHS (taxpayer funded):

  1. Abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialised licensed clinic.
  2. Two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman’s physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy.

This means that unless two doctors both agree that birth would be detrimental to the physical or mental health of the mother, then an abortion is not legal or possible under the NHS scheme. This appears to be the same condition placed on the proposed plan in America.

Under the 1967 Abortion Act, Private Abortion Clinics may carry out abortions, but they are still only legal if two doctors agree on the Abortion being the favourable option to the health of the Mother.

Of course, the question must be asked, “How often do pro-choice doctors make a biased decision?”

Posted in Culture, News Tagged with: , , , ,