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

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: , , , ,