Breaking News: New phony healthcare amendment may peel House pro-life Dems
A Congress Daily article this morning (subscription only) entitled, “House Dems close to abortion deal,” begins:
Democrats are close to finalizing an abortion compromise that would hopefully draw enough moderate anti-abortion Democrats to mitigate a threat from Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI, to block the bill from coming to the floor….
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-CT, has been working on the abortion compromise with Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-IN. At a Caucus meeting Monday night, Ellsworth circulated revised language to strengthen the outline drafted by Rep. Lois Capps, D-CA, without writing into law the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition on using federal funds for abortion. Rep. Baron Hill, D-IN, said the language assuaged his concerns about abortion in the bill. “It makes it clear that no federal dollars can be used for abortion,” Hill said….
THIS IS A PHONY.
First hint: DeLauro is a flaming pro-abort.
The National Right to Life Committee has obtained the text of what it believes to be the Ellsworth Amendment, and the changes it makes in the abortion-related provisions of the bill are strictly cosmetic.
According to the NRLC, If that language is added to HR 3962:
(1) the new federal government insurance program, the “public option,” would still be explicitly authorized to pay for all elective abortions by language on page 110 of the bill; and
(2) the federal premium subsidies (“affordability credits”) could still be used to purchase private health plans that cover elective abortion.
Per NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson: “The pro-abortion House Democratic leadership is using Ellsworth’s phony language to undercut the real pro-life amendment, which is the amendment proposed by Reps. Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts (R-PA). The Ellsworth language is the legislative equivalent of putting pancake makeup on a cancer, rather than performing lifesaving surgery.”
Action: Until now Ellsworth was had a good pro-life record. Call his DC office to convey dismay (202-225-4636) as well as his Evansville (812- 465-6484) and Terre Haute offices (812- 232-0523).
Most importantly, encourage pro-lifers in IN’s 8th Congressional District to do the same.
Also call your congressperson and tell him or her pro-lifers will accept nothing less than adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
There’s no point in annoying my congressman. Alan Grayson, that is.
Look at section 222, “essential benefits package defined”,
(e) “abortion coverage prohibited as part of minimum benefits package” (this section says that plans cannot require all qualified plans to offer abortion,” part (2) “voluntary choice of coverage by plan”, part (3): “nothing in this Act (the entire 2,000 page bill) shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in parapgraph (4)(A) [4A sez: ” “abortions for which public funding is allowed.”
This language: “Nothing in this Act (the entire 2,000 page bill) shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage…” –This could be a bitter pill that would trump, would invalidate, various attempts to add abortion-prohibiting amendments. So, a legislator could appear to be tough on abortions, knowing that some revision will not be enforceable because of this “nothing…preventing” clause.
Row1 – do they think really think we’re that stupid to not question this????
Thanks for making this clear. Let’s get the word out.
Hey, Carder —
When you say:
“There’s no point in annoying my congressman. Alan Grayson, that is.”
Why let him off easy? Even though it probably would not accomplish anything by calling Grayson and asking him nicely to explain his way out of the above analysis — as if he could. You’ve already paid taxes for his salary, and he has a title that says he represents you. Heck, he has folks working in his office who have the job of taking calls. And you’re paying for them, too.
My reps are just the same, but we sure have the right to ask them anything we want about issues, and tell them what we think. Not calling would be a real waste of your tax dollars and rights.
If you don’t press, one day they will have the gall to tell you that you can’t blame them, and that it’s all your fault for not calling. That is exactly what they’ll say. Guaranteed.
If nothing else, it’s good to let them hear the sound of voters awakening. As often as possible.
Might make them think for a change. . . well, probably not. That would be expecting too much.
Call. Email. Write. Make appointments. And always insist they provide you the specific page and section number that covers what they claim to address your issue for the bill you ask about.
Ask specific questions — have a list.
Ask when you can expect answers to those specific questions. When no answers come, or if they’re evasive, ask what does it take for a constituent who’s helping pay the freight to get a response.
Don’t give up. Refuse to accept talking points. Call them out. Add more questions to the list.
Don’t stop.
Grayson deserves it. It comes with the job. Let him try to earn his pay, even if he’s worthless.
Has anyone asked these democrats how they ARE going to pay for abortions? (since they’re saying no federal dollars will be used). We know they WILL get paid for. I think they’re saying the premium costs will pay for them. However, there will be tons of government subsidies (taxpayer money) given to people who then pay their premiums with it (taxpayer money, i.e., federal dollars). I haven’t heard one journalist or newsperson ask them how they ARE going to pay for them. Just wondering.