By now you may know that the House health care bill proposes using federal funds to pay for abortions (H.R. 3962, page 110) – most directly, in the form of abortionists receiving reimbursement checks paid for with funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account (H.R. 3962, page 215).
Members of Congress listened to the outcry of a majority of Americans who oppose the government using federal funds to pay for abortion in government health care. Pro-lifer, Rep. Bart Stupak, D.-Mich., whipped together about 40 of his Democrat colleagues to stand alongside House Republicans and agree on one thing: that they would prevent the health-care bill from coming to the floor (by voting against a procedural rule) – unless the Democrats allowed a vote on an amendment banning abortion funding.
Bipartisanship at its finest; defending the preborn. That bipartisan coalition has put Democrat leadership up a creek without a legislative paddle for a while now, trying to secure enough votes to pass the "rule" that would allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote. Sounds good, right?
Except one pro-life Democrat recently broke ranks and may give his colleagues reason to follow. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., who usually votes pro-life, has apparently worked up "compromise" language with Democrat leadership that he is touting as the answer to the abortion-funding problem. But pro-lifers see it for what it truly is – a phony pro-life amendment that could peel off enough moderate Democrats to secure the votes needed to bring the health-care bill to the floor.
Ellsworth's "compromise" amendment would not keep the government from using federal funds to pay for abortions. Rather, it proposes a scheme of outside contractors to handle the money so that Democrats can pretend the "government" isn't funding abortion. And while Ellsworth may mean well — he has historically voted pro-life — good intentions don't matter when preborn lives are at stake.
Fortunately, good pro-life language exists that would ban abortion funding in the health-care bill, except in rare cases. That amendment is being offered by Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich. Their plan is similar to the Hyde Amendment, a funding restriction that has to be passed by Congress each year that keeps the government from directly paying for abortions under Medicaid.
So get on the phone or write an email to your U.S. representative. (Here are a few tips.)Ask him or her to oppose any phony pro-life "fix" to the health care bill. Instead, urge your lawmaker to support the Stupak-Pitts amendment that would ensure that the government doesn't use federal funds to reimburse abortionists.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To read more blog entries from Ashley Horne, or our other public policy analysts, visit the DriveThru blog.
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family Action is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
