Politics: Democrats may skip procedures to push through health care legislation

I'm sure we're all very busy as we jump back into work and school this week.

Things are moving, however, on the health care front, and we should keep up to speed.

The latest from Steve Ertelt at LifeNews:

Congressional Democrats are seriously examining the possibility of skipping the formal conference committee process in an attempt to railroad the pro-abortion health care bill through the House and Senate. Bypassing the normal process may allow them to skip procedural votes that could hold up or kill the bill.

With both chambers approving different bills -- a House version doesn't fund abortions while a Senate version does -- Democrats have to create a bill that both chambers can approve and send to President Barack Obama.

Typically a formal conference committee with members from both chambers and both parties formally meet to resolve the differences.

Instead, Democrats may work informally to craft a final bill and Democratic aides tell the New Republican that is "almost certain" to happen.

Michelle Malkin points out that in 2006, when political fortunes were reversed, Democrats fiercely opposed a technique they now are attempting to take advantage of themselves.

Meanwhile, we cannot forget the shame of Catholic politicians pushing for this anti-life legislation. Deal Hudson is undertaking the thankless task of naming the names and keeping track of where politicians stand on this critical issue.

In other news, look for my long-awaited big news within the next 24 hours....

Thanks for your patience - I hope it will be rewarded!

Stupaks says White House trying to keep him quiet on abortion problems

CNSNews reports:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

Remember, only a year ago, when some Catholics were promising that Obama would be a "pro-life" President?

Now, after having lied time and time again that the health care bill he would be willing to sign did not include federal money to pay for abortions, Obama and his staff are pressuring a pro-life Democrat to keep quiet about his judgement that the current health care bill does in fact do that.

We should remember this harsh lesson the next time we are tempted to believe the arguments of liberal Catholics who are more guided by their political views than their Catholic moral principles.

Kathleen Sebelius, meanwhile, the pro-abortion head of the deparment of Health and Human Services who will receive huge, sweeping powers if the current health care bill is approved, as FRC reports, "in a new video uncovered today, [she] praises Nelson's language, because, according to the woman in charge of these reforms, it ensures that everyone will pay for abortion--no matter how the funds are divided up."

The American bishops, for their part, have sent a second letter to members of Congress saying the current health care bill is "deficient" and should not move forward without "essential changes."

Breaking: Nelson caves, Senate passes pro-abortion bill tonight

I've been deluged with emails this weekend keeping me up to date on the rapid developments taking place in the health care debate.

The most important news to absorb is that Senator Nelson - at this point - has caved and is promising to support Senator Reid's pro-abortion bill when it is voted upon at 1AM tonight {update - he did cave and became the 60th and final vote for Reid's pro-abortion bill.}

He refused to listen to pro-life groups who were attempting to support him, opting instead to strike a backroom deal with Senator Reid which saves his state of Nebraska $100 million over the next decade, as I report on the APP blog.

Others have noted the implications of Nelson's "sweetheart" deal:

"Deacon Keith Fournier describes this as Nelson’s “bag of silver.”  Fournier explains, “If Senator Ben Nelson actually sold his vote for a bag of silver for Nebraska then this has become a ‘Judas moment’ not a ‘Thomas More moment’ and its implications are evil.”

The Casey-Nelson solution is unacceptable. The National Right to Life Committee is crystal clear :

"The manager’s amendment [= Casey-Nelson compromise] is light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was approved by the House of Representatives on November 8 by a bipartisan vote of 240-194.  The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems."

The message from the US bishops, when briefed about Nelson's decision, is uncompromising:

The Senate health reform bill should not move forward in its current form, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City said December 19, as senators proceeded closer to a vote.

... [the bill] should be opposed unless and until such serious concerns have been addressed. The bishops' conference continues to study that 383-page amendment's implications from the perspective of all the bishops' moral concerns -- protection of life and conscience, affordable access to health care, and fairness to immigrants.

Deal Hudson - who has been very active in this debate through his new innitiative the Catholic Advocate - picks up on an argument I made last week during my EWTN appearance last week: "A Vote for Cloture Is a Vote for Abortion" (basically, anyone who votes for the current legislation is voting to create and expand federal sponsorship of abortion, in opposition to long-standing policy). Deal also writes :

The fight over federal funding for abortion will now move back to the House where 62 Democrats voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment — it remains to be seen how many of those Democrats will follow in the footsteps of Sen. Ben Nelson.

Once again the bright light will fall on Cong. Bart Stupak (D-MI) who stood up against immense pressure last month to get his amendment passed.

Deal is absolutely right - presuming the bill is passed out of the Senate - everything hinges on Rep. Stupak and his coalition of pro-life Democrats in the House. That's our last cause for hope.

As further background, the Catholic Health Association came out in support of the Casey-Nelson compromise, and Steven Ertelt picks apart why they probably did so. Shame on them. The Catholic Medical Association, meanwhile, is strongly against the bill. Good for them.


I will update this post as I find out more information.


Update 1:15 AM - the Senate ended debate and passed the bill on a party line vote of 60-40. All 58 Democrats and 2 Independents voted on the bill, not a single Republican voted for the bill. Senators Casey and Nelson both supported the pro-abortion bill. A sad day for America and the protection of unborn human life, but the fight is not over.

Action: Thank Ben Nelson for his pro-life stand!

Earlier today I blogged on the "Casey compromise" that Ben Nelson was said to be reviewing. As I noted at the time, numerous pro-life individuals and organizations have declared that the Casey compromise is "unacceptable."

Now it appears that Nelson has come to the same conclusion , and is standing strong that the abortion language needs to be eliminated.

Please, if you have a few moments - and especially if you live in Nebraska - use this official email form to thank Senator Nelson for his courage!

update: the spokesman for the US bishops on life issues, Richard Doerflinger is also against the Casey Compromise, as he told the New York Times today.

Pelosi on pro-abortion language in Senate bill: "Thank God"

From the woman who now claims she has switched to "campaign mode", some injudicious language (oh that's right, she doesn't care):

[Pelosi said] the Senate bill "doesn't have a public option, doesn't expand Medicare for the (age) 55 to 64 group, and has abortion language that is completely different from the House -- thank God." (LifeNews )

I'm glad she agrees with pro-life arguments that the Senate bill doesn't have pro-life language. I wonder if she'd like the Casey compromise ?

Pelosi on - ahem - bi-partisanship:

[When asked if she thinks she can get enough votes from Democrats to pass the final bill]:

"I never count on Republicans."

Rep. Bart Stupak, meanwhile, believes he has 10 to 12 votes on his side that Pelosi needs to eventually pass the health care bill, should it make it out of the Senate with its pro-abortion language intact.

Read between the Lies: Catholics United tries to spin the truth

Deal Hudson is good at picking the right fights, and in this case, he's found an opponent who appears to enjoy shooting himself in the foot, while digging himself a hole, after he's realized he's behind.

Deal has been talking to US News and World Report blogger Dan Gilgoff, making the simple point that Catholics United is a fake Catholic organization:

"The same fake Catholic groups that helped President Barack Obama get elected," Hudson writes on his InsideCatholic website , "have rallied to the cause of the health-care bill, abortion funding and all."

Chris Korzen, the executive director of one of these fake Catholic organizations - Catholics United - wasn't smart enough to stay quiet and lay low. He decided to respond.

This leaves be with the undesirable - but I think necessary - task of refuting what Korzen wrote, line by tedious line. Here we go (when I write Korzen in bold, that means I'm issuing a direct challenge to him):

Abortion is legal in the United States, and there's not much either Catholics United or Deal Hudson can do to change that.

Way to start with an attitude of defeat. Does Korzen think the position of a Catholic organization on the question of abortion should be "we've lost"?

What we can do is find ways to unite Americans around common ground approaches to abortion, something Hudson and company have consistently opposed doing.

Korzen: name one example of Deal "and company" doing so. What Deal (and I, and many others, including the US bishops), have repeatedly done, is reject common ground that is actually pro-abortion. Pushing contraception to schoolkids? That's not common ground. Funding Planned Parenthood? That's not common ground. Korzen: name one common ground initiative that you support. Be specific. We'll talk.

Ensuring that pregnant women and children have insurance coverage should be a no-brainer for Catholics.

Not if these token provisions are wrapped in 1,000+ pages of government bureaucracy, no conscience clause exemptions, an abortion mandate, significant fears of rationing (especially of the elderly and vulnerable), fiscal irresponsibility, and coercion of religious medical providers and individuals. That should be the no-brainer here, Chris. If these issues don't strike Korzen as causing concern, then he's coming at this from a partisan perspective - not a Catholic one. And Korzen can quote me on that.

In short, I wouldn't call us pro-abortion rights or anti-abortion rights. We're pro-common ground.

So Korzen would not call Catholics United "anti-abortion rights." So Korzen: does he support the "anti-abortion" measure of making partial-birth abortions illegal? Korzen: does he support parental notification laws? Korzen: does he not support the funding of crisis pregnancy centers that promote adoptions? After all, all of these can be considered "anti-abortion rights" initiatives. Furthermore, Korzen: what defines, for Catholics United, what is acceptable common ground? Is it the teachings of the Church about the truth and dignity of the human person, or is it political expediency? I'm waiting.

You'll note that we supported the House bill after the Stupak language was passed, much to the consternation of actual pro-abortion rights groups. . . .

So Korzen's claim to fame is that his organization managed to do something that the "pro-abortion" groups weren't on board with? That's an extremely strange definition of success. Such a low bar. And I thought Korzen said he wouldn't label Catholics United as a "pro-abortion rights group." Oh well.

But let's take this a second step - why did Korzen support the House after Stupak amendment passed? Was it because the bill was now "pro-life"? Then obviously he wouldn't support the Senate bill if it did not include the same pro-life language? Korzen: is my analysis accurate? If so, I'm glad we cleared that up. But if Korzen actually supported the bill because he is in lock-step with Democrat goals, then he is actually no different than the majority of pro-abortion groups, so his argument is false and deceitful.

I'm pretty sure Deal wasn't with us in supporting final passage of the [House] health care bill. He just hates the idea of health care reform, and abortion provides an all-too-convenient excuse.

As I prepare to write this next sentence, the number of ways to throw these words back at you leave me confused where to begin. How can Korzen say a pro-life advocate "hates the idea of health care reform"? I think it's pretty clear pro-lifers hate this type of health care reform, the kind which actually hurts all the good things health care reform is supposed to help. And by "good things" I mean people, Chris, real human beings, unborn, elderly - all Americans effected by this legislation.

In my short experience in politics, one of my saddest lessons has been that the men who practice deception attack others using the same arguments they know ought to be used against them. Korzen makes a habit of attacking those who disagree with him as being "blindly partisan". I have read his lies for a long time now - this is his only "argument." If you disagree with him, it is because you aren't a Democrat - that is behind every one of his attempts to distract and confuse.

At times I have disagreed with Republican issues and elected officials. I recently strongly opposed their congressional candidate in NY-23. Readers will recall I came out vocally against John McCain's position on Embryonic Stem Cell Research during the presidential campaign. There are many other examples. But can Korzen name one example where Catholics United, as an organization, vocally disagreed with a Democrat policy, issue, or candidate, because these opposed Catholic teaching?

In the final analysis, I think (to use Korzen's words) that he actually just hates the idea of being wrong, and lies provide an all-too-convenient way out.

If I'm wrong, Mr. Korzen can start by responding. If the truth is on his side, it will come to his defense.

(I would also say, publicly, that I am happy to debate Mr. Korzen in public, in person. I am open to discussing the terms of the debate, and my contact information is readily available on the sidebar.)

Breaking: Pro-life groups say Casey compromise "unacceptable"

First, a quick recap: last Tuesday the Senate, led by Senator Harry Reid, voted down Senator Ben Nelson's pro-life amendment.

After Nelson threatened to filibuster a bill with pro-abortion provisions, Senator Bob Casey worked with Senator Harry Reid (already a bad sign) to work on compromise language that would be acceptable to Nelson.

Late yesterday Casey gave new language to Nelson for him to review, and Nelson asked pro-life groups to comment.

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life, having seen the language, was the first prominent pro-life consultant to declare the Casey compromise "unacceptable" - as he explained:

"This is far cry from the Stupak Amendment," Johnson said in an email delivered to news outlets.

"This proposal would break from the long-established principles of the Hyde Amendment by providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion on demand. This is entirely unacceptable," he added.

The proposal apparently has an opt-out clause that would allow taxpayers who object to their premiums and tax money used to pay for abortions to leave the program.

"It is particularly offensive that the proposal apparently would make it the default position for the federal government to subsidize plans that cover abortion on demand, and then permit individual citizens to apply for conscientious objector status," he said.

"This is an exercise is cosmetics -- like putting lipstick on a legislative warthog," Johnson concluded.

Staff for Nelson and Casey say process of drafting the language is ongoing, though the condemnation from National Right to Life might make its drafters go back to the drawing board.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, also came out against the Casey amendment. If Perkins and Johnson are against it, you can be very confident that the rest of the pro-life organizations will come to a similar conclusion. This really isn't a hard call to make.

After all, remember - all pro-life groups are demanding at this point is that the new health care legislation follow long-standing Hyde amendment language (which prohibits federal funds from paying for abortions). The US Bishops have released a helpful side-by-side page which compares current federal law to the Nelson amendment and twitters "[they are] the same thing."

And yet pro-abortion groups and legislators - and now Senator Casey himself - continue to try to sneak in (or outright provide for) an abortion mandate in the bill.

The word on the street is that Senator Casey will continue negotiations with Senator Nelson, hoping to win-over Nelson's vote. Senator Casey is thus, in a real way, pushing for this health care bill.

Yesterday I uploaded one of the advertisements that pro-life groups are airing in Senator Casey's home state of Pennsylvania, and also noted the pressure that Senator Nelson is under from within the Senate to change his vote.

Outside of Washington DC, however, it's a very different picture. In Senator Nelson's state of Nebraska, the majority of citizens don't want Harry Reid's health care bill. So Senator Nelson's resistance to the current legislation need not solely be on the grounds that it provides a huge expansion to abortion funding and access. There are very practical political reasons to oppose it, in addition to the moral reasons I've mentioned.

I urge papists in these two states to continue doing their best to convince their Senators to make the right choice - to craft truly pro-life language, and to only vote for a bill that will improve the way health care is delivered, at an affordable cost, without rationing care to vulnerable persons.

Personally, I see no way the current legislation can address all of these serious issues.

Update: Senate defeats Sen. Nelson's pro-life amendment 54-45

I just watched on C-SPAN as the Nelson-Hatch amendment (the Senate version of the Stupak amendment in the House - I explain it here) was defeated 54-45. 

The democrats needed only 50 votes to defeat this abortion neutrality amendment and they went over that mark by four Senators. This means, however, that at least 5 democrats came across he aisle and voted pro-life, but it wasn't enough.

As I wrote after the vote was published, "Senate Health Care remains strongly pro-abortion."

This result was not unexpected, but it certainly complicates the efforts of the American bishops and faithful to ensure that health care reform does not change the status quo in favor of government money funding abortion. 

More as it happens....

According to the official roll, {update} two Republicans voted for the pro-abortion status quo (Collins and Snowe of Maine). {update} 7 Democrats, meanwhile, voted for the pro-life Nelson amendment: Kaufman of DL, Bayh of IN, Casey of PA, Conrad of ND, Dorgan of ND, Nelson of NE, Pryor of AR.

Bob Casey of PA, however, will probably vote for the pro-abortion bill, now that he has had his chance to offer an amendment (which was tabled, of course). 

Sen. Nelson has made some promise that he would filibuster the final bill if his amendment failed or was tabled. Let's focus our prayers on him holding true to that promise.

Today: pro-life amendment in Senate *updated*

Here on Capitol Hill, it is widely expected that the Nelson-Hatch pro-life amendment will be offered today for a vote. update: it will be voted on Tuesday.

While it would need 60 votes to pass, this is not an impossible feat, especially after the better-than-expected turnout for the Stupak amendment in the House.

Kathleen Gilbert writes about the Nelson-Hatch amendment, and what others are saying about it:

Following reports that the Senate may vote imminently on its pro-life amendment, the National Right to Life Committee is urging voters to lobby senators to ensure a yes vote for the pro-life Hatch-Nelson amendment.

Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) have submitted an amendment to the health care reform bill that, like the Stupak amendment in the House, prevents the Senate version of reform from mandating abortion coverage or providing federal funds for coverage that includes elective abortions.

Many analysts doubt that the pro-life amendment will succeed.  However, Sen. Nelson has vowed to oppose the final bill if it does not include his language - a refusal that could bring down the whole measure unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secures at least one vote from among Republican ranks. 

The amendment would need 60 votes to secure its place in the bill.   There are 40 Republicans in the Senate, but both Republican Senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, support government funding for abortion.  Last year, the following 8 Democratic Senators voted to prohibit funding for abortion or abortion coverage in the Indian Health Service: Senators Bayh (IN), Byrd (WV), Casey (PA), Johnson (SD), Landrieu (LA), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Reid (NV). Both Democratic Senators from North Dakota, Conrad and Dorgan, have voted against government funding for abortion coverage in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.  Senator Lincoln (D-AR) has not voted for pro-life funding amendments, but did vote for the partial birth abortion ban.

Please contact your Senators today (sooner is better) and urge them to support this pro-life amendment! 

Oh, and despite what you may have heard, the Mikulski amendment, which has already passed, is not a pro-life amendment. In fact, it could require all insurance plans to cover abortions.

update: there may be some surprise yes votes on this amendment - so keep at your Senators!

update 2: Abortion vote today could decide fate of heath plan, says Washington Examiner

update 3: Senators Nelson, Boxer Debate Amendment to Stop Abortion Funs in Health Care

[This item was cross-posted to APP.]

Interim post: health care still pro-abortion

Two bad pieces of news on the health care reform debate.

Pro-abortion forces had a rally yesterday, only a couple hundred people showed up, and they were greeted with this outrageous claim:

During the rally yesterday sponsored by the Planned Parenthood abortion business and other leading pro-abortion groups, Rev. Carlton Veazy told the small gathering of hardcore activists that abortion is a "God-given right." Veazy is the head of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

The rally was a time for abortion advocates to rally together to press for taxpayer funding of abortions and saw a small crowd of just a few hundred people -- compared to the 100,000 or more who attend the March for Life. (LifeNews)

Operatives of the St. Michael Society infiltrated the pro-abortion event and published a report.

Second, the flawed Mikulski Amendment passed on a near party-line vote today:

Senators approved an amendment to the government-run health care bill today that calls abortion "preventative care." They voted 61-39 in favor of the Mikulski amendment that could make it so every health care plan in the United States would have to cover abortion.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a pro-abortion Maryland Democrat, offered Amendment No. 2791 dealing with federally mandated coverage of "preventive care."

Though most of the discussion on the amendment centered on a mammogram coverage problem in the bill, it presents significant concerns for pro-life advocates.

The Mikulski amendment would essentially open the door to defining abortion as "preventative care" and could result in mandates to private insurance plans that they define abortion as such and provide coverage of it. (LifeNews)

I know efforts were made to fix the language of this amendment so that it excludes abortion as "preventative coverage", but to my knowledge, those were not introduced before it was voted upon and improved, so it remains open to the abuse of covering abortions under its phrasing.

More as it happens....

Open thread: The Health Care Debate

[Greetings from Torun, Poland where I am presenting at the College of Social and Media Culture's Second International Congress. Given what they do here, they have a very nice internet connection here so I can carry on with my blogging!]

So what's happening in the health care debate right now?

Sen. Harry Reid has released his 2,074 page health care bill into the Senate for debate (full text here).

Unlike the Stupak-amended Speaker Pelosi health care bill, Reid's Senate bill contains massive abortion funding. 

To be specific, it will levy a new "abortion premium" fee on Americans who participate in the government-run plan (yes, Reid has included the infamous "public option" in his version of the bill). 

This abortion premium structure was drafted by Rep. Lois Capps - a huge abortion advocate. It should come as no surprise that she has written an abortion tax into the bill.

Americans United for Life has detailed how Reid's bill funds abortions with American tax money, as well as problems it raises for conscience protection and end-of-life issues.

Bottom line: the US bishops have said Catholics must "vigorously oppose" any health care bill that contains abortion funding. The Reid bill contains abortion funding, therefore Catholics must tell their elected representatives that they vigorously oppose it. Here's one place to do that.

update:

In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) emphasizes that every pro-life senator should cast a no vote on allowing the Senate to consider the Democrats health care reform bill, which would require at least one government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortion and would allow taxpayer dollars to subsidize such plans. All it would take, Senator Johanns points out, to defeat public funding of abortion is for one pro-life Senate Democrat to stand up for his or her principles and vote no on considering the bill.

I'd like to see readers contribute the names of which Democrat Senators they think would be most likely to join pro-life Republicans in voting against this pro-abortion bill.

Unwritten story: New VA & NJ governors are strong Catholics

On January 19th 2009 the new governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, will be sworn-in to office at 11:30 AM.

But earlier that day, at 9:00 AM, he will attend a Mass celebrated by Archbishop John Myers at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart.

Chris Christie, you see, is a practicing pro-life, pro-family Catholic. I wrote in my posts leading up to the November elections as much. 

He opposes gay marriage and wants to allow the people of his state to vote on it, while on the other side, the Democrat Legislature is trying to legalize gay marriage during the upcoming lameduck session.

Christie is also pro-life, and didn't hide that fact during the race. Like many pro-life politicians, he is forced to take an incremental approach (such as parental notification, a 24-hour waiting period and a ban on partial-birth abortions), but at least he is sincerely trying.

Jon Corzine, Christie's opponent in the race, attached him for his pro-life, pro-family positions.

The other new governor to be sworn in early next year is Bob McDonnell, equally pro-life and pro-family (from what I've heard). McDonnell was ruthlessly and relentlessly attacked for his pro-life, pro-family positions, as was his attorney general candidate friend, Ken Cuccinelli (who also won, despite the Washington Post calling him a "bigot" the weekend before the election).

Remembering off the top of my head, the Washington Post alone published something like 40 or 50 individual stories about McDonnell's thesis in school, where, among other things, McDonnell expressed conservative and/or "Catholic" perspectives on the role of women in the work place, the effects of abortion and contraception on society, etc. 

I'm a bit fuzzy on all the details - and readers are welcome (as always) to correct them in the comment box - but the basic point is this: two Catholic candidates won elections this year to state-wide office without compromising their pro-life, pro-family principles. 

The world didn't end, and once they are in office, they won't conduct witch hunts against those who disagree with them on these issues - but they will use their office to promote these central values, which transcend any one religion or political party. Catholics aren't pro-life and pro-family, after all, only because the Church tells them to be so, but rather, they are encouraged to hold true to these commonsense principles because of the witness and encouragement of their Catholic faith.

You read a lot, and heard a lot about how dangerous were Christie and McDonnell's "Catholic" beliefs during the election, but you won't hear much about these "dangers" now, because in the meantime, the people of Virginia and New Jersey chose them for elected office.

I think this reality scares some pro-abortion, anti-marriage individuals. But it should encourage us.

Commentary: Is abortion funding a distraction, or not?

Back when abortion funding was in the health care reform bill (protestations from the White House to the contrary notwithstanding), President Obama told Katie Couric that the abortion issue was a "distraction" from his larger project to promote health care reform. 

Rep. Patrick Kennedy later attacked the US Catholic bishops for using the "red herring" of abortion funding to oppose the overarching "pro-life" goals of health care reform (mark my words: it's going to be one of the biggest mistakes of his political career).

The message of both the White House and Democrat leadership was clear: to get hung up on the abortion issue, they claimed, was to needlessly fritter away precious time at the grave human expense of those without medical insurance. Pro-life Democrats and their Republican allies were holding health care reform "hostage" over abortion, it was said.

Then, two things happened. First, Rep. Bart Stupak's eleventh-hour abortion-neutrality amendment passed with the support of 64 Democrats. A couple days later, forty Democrats reportedly wrote to Speaker Pelosi threatening to vote "no" on a final bill unless the Stupak amendment is stripped in conference. They are, essentially, threatening to hold health care reform "hostage" over abortion.

Reporters, pundits and talking heads, meanwhile, are all buzzing about this new battle over abortion funding. It's the talk of the town. Legislation which advances the abortion agenda is evidently a non-starter, but arguments over the legitimacy of attempts to preserve the status quo - now that's something to talk about.

(Random aside: Chris Matthews in particular spent a lengthy segment on his program Hardball discussing the abortion funding problem with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. I had to raise my eyebrows when Matthews, discussing the abortion disagreement, asked Richards: "Can you cut this in half?" Her response was chilling to all King Solomon fans: "Sure.")

But what does all this new buzz about abortion funding have in common?

No one is saying this debate about abortion funding is a "distraction" or "red herring."

I, for one, welcome this newly-discovered common ground.

[cross-posted at the American Principles Project blog.]

Fireworks: Bishop Tobin escalates episcopal correction of Rep. Kennedy

Congressman Kennedy picked the wrong Bishop to mess with.

The back-and-forth between Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI has been interesting to watch, especially because Kennedy has attempted to defend himself with every old, tired argument in the liberal playbook.

Bishop Tobin's most recent round, however, published in the Rhode Island Catholic newspaper, is a grand slam.

Because I'm a spoiler, I'm going to quote the last part of Bishop Tobin's public letter to Kennedy - but you should take the time and read the whole thing:

"Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so."

Next step: official censure or excommunication. Rep. Kennedy has now been publicly rebuked and invited to convert and offer repentance.

Mr. Kennedy, stop while you're behind. Repent, and be reconciled. You're out of other options.

Unfortunately, at this point, Mr. Kennedy has broken off his planned meeting with Bishop Tobin. Whatever Kennedy may be thinking, that's not the right way to set things right.

Update: Everything you never wanted to know about the health care debate

For those of you who just want to know what is going on in this new chapter of the health care debate, I'll summarize the two important points before filling-in the back story below:

1. The health care bill that was passed last Saturday wasn't as bad as it could have been, thanks in no small part to the vigorous efforts of Catholic bishops and faithful
2. ... but, this process has a long, long way to go. And we have to remain vigilant that the small concessions we have gained are not given up in the legislative rumble and tumble to come.

Now, all the confusing details....

Planned Parenthood, incensed that moderate Democrats joined Republicans in support the abortion-neutral Stupak amendment, are attempting to use their "strongest weapon - the White House." The Family Research Council is correct that the passage of the Stupak amendment was "a stunning rebuke of [the Planned Parenthood] agenda in an arena they traditionally dominate." It's no surprise they are trying to go over the heads in Congress now.

Pro-aborts love point out "fractures" in the pro-life community, but they are definitely engaging in some serious squabbling at this point. If anyone had any doubts about Rosa DeLauro's pro-abortion ideology, it's completely in the open now. Don't trust her "pro-life compromise" bills. The only thing she wants to compromise is the pro-life movement. 

And to encourage unity on our side, let's be clear - passing the Stupak amendment did not play into the hands of pro-abortion Democrats trying to pass their health care bill, as John McCormack explains.

President Obama, for his part, was asked yesterday about these recent developments, and his response was mostly worthless. On the one hand he said this is "a health care bill, not an abortion bill," but he also hinted that he thought changes needed to be made to the bill's current language - so who knows. 

Timothy Gibbs, his spokesman, certainly isn't any help in establishing the President's position on this issue. Once again, his attempts to gratify both pro-abortion and pro-life forces has resulted in his angering and frustrating both sides. But right now our side is faring slightly better.

Meanwhile, the most immediate danger is that the abortion-neutral Stupak amendment will be stripped in conference. In a letter to Nancy Pelosi, 41 Democrats demanded that she strip the abortion-neutral language before it passed out of the House. One democrat is "confident" and "working very hard" to ensure that the final bill is pro-abortion. Jack Smith at the Catholic Key argues that Pelosi does not have enough votes to pass the final bill.

As for the Senate - the next battlefield over health care, faces many of the abortion problems that plagued the House version of the bill. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska appears to be willing to take over the mantle of Bart Stupak and introduce an abortion-neutral amendment into the Senate version of health care.

Cardinal George of the US Bishops conference has promised to remain "vigilant and involved throughout this entire process." You can count on my watching it closely.

For those interested in the technical side of things, the National Right to Life Committee has good resources online, updated with frequency and detail. 

Video: Planned Parenthood describes watching abortion ultrasound

I blogged about her story last week. Jill Stanek has found video of her describing the amazing story:

Brad Wilmouth at LifeNews has more.

You can bet Planned Parenthood is panicking. As they should.

Stupid: Planned Parenthood President calls bishops "ideologues" in NYT

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, asked her twitter followers if they agreed with her quote in today's New York Times.

I'm curious if you agree with her quote:

On Sunday, some abortion rights advocates lashed out at the bishops. “It was an unconscionable power play,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, accusing the bishops of “interceding to put their own ideology in the national health care plan.”

Let's be clear: all that the bishops were demanding was the status quo. PelosiCare, as currently amended, represents no immediate expansion in abortion funding. Before it was amended, PelosiCare represented a huge expansion in federal funding for abortions. 

This was not an issue of ideology - the vast majority of Americans oppose federal funding of abortions. The only ideology being pushed here is that of Cecile Richards and her friends.

Richard's claim that it's the bishops - not her and her friends - who are pushing an unpopular ideology ties in well with this Politico report which details the behind-the-scenes squabbling that took place between Democrats leading up to the vote on the abortion-neutral Stupak amendment:

Some of the lawmakers argued that Pelosi was turning her back on a decades-long campaign by female Democratic members in support of abortion rights. [Rep. George] Miller rose to Pelosi’s defense, which resulted in an angry confrontation between him and [Rep. Rosa] DeLauro, said the sources.

Miller told DeLauro that there were “more pro-life votes in the House than pro-choice” and that abortion-rights advocates had better acknowledge that reality.

DeLauro is, of course, a vicious pro-abort and one of the top abortion strategists. Her arguments were overcome by the political reality that even more Democrat representatives supported removing federal funding for abortions than supported it.

I'm happy to see the number of individuals in the Democrat party DeLauro can count upon as allies for unrestricted abortion expansion and funding is decreasing.

Unfortunately, pro-aborts still have their "strongest weapon" occupying the White House.

And as for Cecile Richards and her "ideologue" smear, here is my reply. What's yours?

Health Care Updates - have the bishops endorsed PelosiCare?

Because this story is changing by the minute please follow my live updates on twitter.

Today Pelosi is trying to get enough votes together to approve her deeply-flawed health care bill.

It has been an eventful morning. From what I can tell, after failing to get enough promised votes for health care without an abortion-neutrality amendment, Pelosi decided to allow it.

Right now Politico is reporting that the US Bishops have endorsed the bill.

That's not true - rather, it appears that the bishops are encouraging that members support the abortion-neutrality amendment (which is finally coming to a vote) and have laid out other conditions under which their primary reservations will be resolved.

[update - Politico has changed the title of their "live pulse" story to clarify that the bishops have only endorsed the Stupak/etc amendment - not the whole bill. Because this story is changing by the minute please follow my live updates on twitter.]

Politico has published a letter from the bishops that they issued today. It looks like in the final crucial hours of health care the "social justice" side of the bishops is calling the shots. I'll explain later.

Also, as much as some people try to downplay the importance of abortion funding in this debate, another article in Politico today basically concedes that this entire process of approving PelosiCare was almost ground to a halt solely on this issue.

Things on the hill are apparently crazy today. They are crazy because Pelosi is trying to push this health care bill through without time for deliberation and prudence. She wants to rush through an overhaul of the way one-in-six dollars is spent in this country without listening to the majority of the American people.

That's a heck of a way to run a government.

Please continue to email and call (202-224-3121 ) your representatives to demand that they vote YES on the pro-life stupak amendment, and then vote NO on HR 3962.

Bishop Conley: health care reform "fatally flawed ... needs to be opposed and defeated"

Once you have contacted your representatives, read Bishop James Conley's lucid and comprehensive exposition of why Catholics must oppose to current form of health care reform.

Here is his bottom line:

With the exception of a few leaders, like Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, Congress has ignored or rejected every attempt at resolving the serious concerns voiced by the bishops—or alternately, has pushed solutions like the Capps Amendment that do not solve the problems, and even create new ones. The White House has done nothing to intervene. “Common ground” thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy. And as a result, all of the main healthcare reform proposals in Congress, including the huge, 2,000-page merged House bill, are fatally flawed. Unless they are immediately and adequately amended, they need to be opposed and defeated.

For all of Congress’ public talk about “consensus building” and “consensus health care,” Washington has proved once again that hearing loss can be job-related. Most American Catholics, from people in the pews to pastors and bishops, want healthcare reform to work. But too many people in Washington don’t know how to listen, or don’t want to listen, or just don’t care.

Read the full text for his reasons here.

Update: What to say to *your* representative about healthcare

Today is the last opportunity to call your representatives on health care. Let's light up the phones!

Please email and call (202-224-3121 ) your representatives to demand that they vote NO on HR 3962.

update: I found a list of the 69 democrats who have expressed opposition to health care - these are the representatives Pelosi and Obama are trying to win over to their side - this list also includes their individual statements which means you can hold them to their promise!

(they are also receiving pressure from pro-abortion democrat groups - so they need to hear your side!)

See my previous post on this pressing issue here. God Bless you for your activism on this issue.

Update: Bp. Tobin stays strong, and Rep. Kennedy backs off

My friend Josh at Catholic Vote Action gives us an update on the ongoing "dialogue" going on between Congressman the-church-isnt-pro-life Kennedy and Bishop oh-yes-she-is-are-you-stupid Tobin. 

Bishop Tobin recently granted an interview to the Providence Journal:

At another point the bishop addressed what he called the question of whether church leaders are “trying to impose our moral or religious beliefs on Congressman Kennedy.” 

His answer: “Well, the fact is he professes to be a Catholic.” Speaking of Catholic legislators generally, Tobin indicated that the church’s view is that, “if someone is clearly and consistently and obstinately opposed to the church on something as serious as abortion — which again is a grave and intrinsic evil — then they really have to question their membership in the church and their participation in the life of the church.”

Josh further tells us:

Kennedy didn’t apologize to Bishop Tobin, but he did backtrack a little. From the Providence Journal:

Kennedy accepted the invitation in a letter last week and said his comments “were never intended to slight the church.” Kennedy acknowledged that “the church has always stood for health-care reform.” He added, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy of the church on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Kennedy also said that no group “is getting everything it wants” in the medical overhaul. The church “has every right to promote its position,” he said, but if a group “seeks to impose absolutes on the debate, we are left standing idle instead of moving our nation forward.”

That last argument is a canard. Question: What is causing the biggest logjam in moving health care reform bills? It’s Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s insistence on having abortion coverage. If she relented on that, this process could move forward.

I totally agree.

Thanks again, papists, for heading my call to contact Kennedy's office demanding that he apologize, and for contacting Bishop Tobin and supporting his strong, public response to Kennedy's slander.

Report: Pelosi's office trashed by pro-life demonstrators

I was on Capital Hill yesterday afternoon for pro-life meetings about efforts to stop this pro-abortion health care reform being voted on this weekend.

As I was going into one of the House buildings, I saw Randall Terry on the street outside rounding up people to go to Nancy Pelosi's office "to tear up the health care bill."

I have no tolerance for Randall Terry's activities, and I wasn't about to get involved in whatever he was planning. I went to my meetings, and after came out, I wasn't surprised to hear people talking about the commotion he had caused at Nancy Pelosi's office, which included Fr. Norman Weslin - an elderly priest who was famously arrested on Notre Dame's campus earlier this year - again being arrested and dragged out into a waiting cop car.

I twittered the news (here and here) as it was related to me, and Jill Stanek has a full report, including video of what transpired. A bystander promised to get me pictures of what happened, but I don't see much point in posting them.

Such activities, in my estimation, serve no purpose. They certainly do not seem to convert any hearts, and only allow enemies of our cause to caricature us as violent, unlawful trouble makers, which is of course a disservice to our sincere efforts to advance a culture of life in this country.

Action: Stop PelosiCare before it gets voted on this Saturday

PelosiCare will be voted on this Saturday evening. Before that vote happens, we need to email and call (202-224-3121 ) our elected representatives to demand that they vote NO on HR 3962.

Whatever you've heard, 1) this legislation still funds abortions with our taxpayer dollars. 2) Its price tag is outrageous and will be crippling to our economy. 3) Nationalized health care systems always disadvantage the elderly and the very sick. 

I'm blogging at APP about the problems with this health care bill:

• Chapter and Verse: How PelosiCare pays for abortions
• Facts: few more reasons to oppose HR 3962
• Report: "Health Care Reform Assumes Millions Will Pay Fines"
• Video: Ordinary Americans Against Health Care "Reform"

Even if you've never contacted your representative before, please do so today. It's really important.

It's especially important to contact moderate Democrats, as almost all Republicans have promised to vote against it, and almost all liberal Democrats have promised to vote for it.

Pro-abortion organizations, which stand to profit massively if this legislation passes, are mobilizing their members to contact their representatives. Well our voice needs to be heard as well, and now.

You are welcome to say anything you want to your representative, but a very effective thing to tell them - if it is true - is something along the lines of: "If you vote for this health care bill, I will not vote for you again, and if there is an acceptable candidate running against you, I will vote for them, and ask my friends to do the same."

Politicians listen to promises like that. It's a promise I intend to keep.

Urgent: As health care goes to a vote this Saturday - no change in abortion funding

Here in Washington DC, Nancy Pelosi is reportedly scrounging around for the last pledges she needs to bring her health care reform bill to a vote THIS SATURDAY.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood are fully engaged, lying that pro-lifers are trying to take away the current abortion coverage some women have. Well, we're not (would that we were!) - we're simply trying to keep the status quo and prevent health care "reform" from becoming a vehicle for pro-aborts to further mainstream, normalize and even subsidize abortions with our money (abortion fees are big business for NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Of course, we don't have a financial stake in this. They do.)

Jill Stanek does an excellent job pointing out clearly how the new "pro-life amendments" offered this week are "phony" and amount to nothing more than "cosmetic" changes. 

And even though Bart Stupak appears to be hanging tough...

“I am disappointed the manager’s amendment introduced Tuesday night does nothing to change, let alone improve, the inadequate language on federal funding for abortion currently in the health care bill. I will continue to oppose, and will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose, bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until there is satisfactory language to prevent public funding for abortion.”

... matters have since been thrown into doubt because, due to a death in the family, Rep. Stupak will not be in Washington DC this week for any of the votes! Obviously Pelosi sees her opportunity.

Folks, there's no rest for the weary. Please continue to contact your representatives and demand that they vote NO on health care at least until genuine pro-life amendments are offered and approved!

(And even then, I strongly believe we should still vote no on this flawed and irresponsible bill.)

Election Day! Support pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage causes!

Today, please do your part in defending the family in each of the following key elections, as I outlined yesterday.

If you are able to vote in the Virginia, New Jersey, New York-23 elections or Maine referendum, please do so.

If you are out of state, please support the pro-family candidate or proposal with financial resources or by volunteering with appropriate signs at the polls!

I'll be hovering around twitter today posting updates on the elections and election returns.

And let's pray for our country and the brave candidates who fight for our freedoms and families.

National News: TX Planned Parenthood director resigns after witnessing ultrasound, story drawing national attention (+video & inside details)

This news, currently highlighted on the Drudge Report, is quickly making national headlines.

Through AmP reader Marcel at Aggie Catholics, we have an inside loop into the situation, because she is friends with Shawn - the Coalition for Life director - who is pictured at left with Abby Johnson - the former director of the neighboring Planned Parenthood - who is at the center of this amazing tale.

Here is the video:

And here is the story (I've bolded some parts):

Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson's life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

"I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it," said Jonhson.

She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.

"I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me anymore that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion."

Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition's executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.

On Friday both Johnson and the Coalition For Life were issued temporary restraining orders filed by Planned Parenthood.

Rochelle Tafolla, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson issued the following statement: "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary."

The temporary restraining order contends that Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of certain information, but does not bar Johnson or Coalition For Life volunteers from the premises.

Marcel writes:

I just got an email from Shawn. They are swamped, because the story has gone national and they are doing interviews with the big news agencies right now. Pray for them, that the pro-life message gets out.

Amen. Let's help!

Commentary: On Bart Stupak's Collapse

Bart, what happened?!

Earlier this week I was able to write about you standing up to Nancy Pelosi and fighting for pro-life amendments.

But yesterday a YouTube video of you surfaced which revealed that you intend to vote for Pelosi's pro-abortion health care bill even if all your amendments fail!

Now you are writing editorials which have you saying:

"I have not made unreasonable demands. I have simply asked that there be a straight up-or-down vote on my amendment reflective of current laws. If we had a clean vote on this amendment and lost, I could accept that. My pro-life colleagues and I simply want, and deserve, a chance to vote our conscience."

But Bart, you have had chances to offer pro-life amendments. And they have been voted down. Now you are going to give up and accept this pro-abortion bill?

What happened to the Bart about whom it was written, and who said when interviewed:

However, the Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: "I'm comfortable with where I'm at. This is who I am. It's reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it." {source.}

How much things have changed in a matter of days. Do you really think anyone will believe your claim that your conscience is only requiring you to offer and vote on amendments, and that if they get defeated, your conscience is fine with voting for the pro-abortion bill?

I guess you do, but it sure puts the other pro-life Democrats in a lurch, a big one. Pelosi is once again getting her way, picking off the leaders of those representatives who are against her. Your vote is ultimately the only thing you have that she needs from you, and saying your amendments don't matter when it comes time to vote - well, you don't have a future in poker. Let's put it that way.

===

Because this whole situation is complicated, I'll finish simply:

1. The lack of pro-life amendments in PelosiCare ought to be a deal-breaker for you. Don't let Pelosi strong-arm you into compromising your conscience, and your constituents. Frankly, if you vote for this, you'll probably lose your seat anyway. I'll help.
2. Stupak's amendment, whatever Stupak's personal philosophy about voting, is still GOOD. Just because he's having 11th-hour second-thoughts doesn't mean Catholics ought not still rally around his pro-life amendment, or any pro-life amendment that gets offered.

At this point, we'll see if pro-life amendments are even given a chance. That looks doubtful in itself.

Oh, and Hon. Stupak, it's not too late to change your mind again. The vote hasn't happened ... yet.

Video: Two-Faced Stupak? Democrat admits to constituents he would ultimately vote for health care even with taxpayer-funded abortion mandate

A couple days ago I showcased Rep. Stupak's (failed) efforts to get taxpayer-funded abortions out of the house-version of the health care bill. When asked about his objection to this funding, and frequent attempts to eliminate it, Stupak said:

"I'm comfortable with where I'm at. This is who I am. It's reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it."

The Conservative organization Heritage Foundation has since found video, however, which reveals Stupak claiming to his constituents earlier this year that he would eventually vote for a health care bill even if his pro-life amendments had already failed. In this video, Stupak argues that as long as he tries to make the bill pro-life, he's doing his job and can still vote for a bill that isn't actually pro-life:

{update - it appears the video has been removed. But before it was I had a chance to view it and confirm that it is real. Kathleen Gilbert at LifeSiteNews summarizes what Stupak said in the situation.}



I think Rep. Stupak has some explaining to do - and quick.

Imperative: US Bishops urge *every* parish to utilize bullet insert on health care reform

Yesterday I blogged about my claim that "How many bishops support the current health care reform? None of them."

My claim is born out today by this email sent out by the USCCB Pro-Life Activities secretariat. It represents an unprecedented mobilization of the Catholic faithful on a particular political issue.

It is simply incredible - the US Bishops want every parish in America to help them get the message out. It explicitly says that individual dioceses ought not to "opt out" of this innitiative.

I don't care if I overload my bandwidth having indivividuals download these materials - we need to take action, starting in your parish:

From: Tom Grenchik, Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities

To: Diocesan Pro-Life Directors & State Catholic Conference Director

Re: URGENT: Nationwide USCCB Bulletin Insert on Health Care Reform

Attached [see below], please find an Urgent Memorandum highlighting USCCB plans and requests for diocesan and parish based activation on health care reform.

The President of the Conference and the Chairmen of the three major USCCB committees engaged in health care reform have written all the bishops and asked that the attached USCCB Nationwide Bulletin Insert on health care reform be printed or hand-stuffed in every parish bulletin and/or distributed in pews or at church entrances as soon as possible.

Congressional votes may take place as soon as early November. If your Arch/bishop is not in agreement with disseminating the bulletin insert, you will be hearing from his office immediately. You may wish to check with his office ASAP to see how you may be of assistance in distributing the Bulletin Insert, far and wide.

Tomorrow, the USCCB will be e-mailing these same materials to a large number of parishes across the country, already on a USCCB contact list. The parish list is incomplete, so we will still have to rely on diocesan e-mail systems to reach EVERY parish. Thank you for your great help with this.

Also included are suggested Pulpit Announcements and a Prayer Petition.

There is also a copy of a newly-released ad for the Catholic press, which may be printed as flyers for the vestibule or copied on the flip-side of the Bulletin Insert. The flyer/ad directs readers to www.usccb.org/action where they may send their pre-written e-mails to Congress through NCHLA’s Grassroots Action Center. If you wish to sponsor the ad in your local Catholic paper and need a different size, please contact Deirdre McQuade at dmcquade@usccb.org.

Please encourage parishioners to pray for this effort as well. More information can be found at www.usccb.org/healthcare.

Thank you for your urgent actions and prayers on behalf of this nationwide effort!

With this email are four attached documents - print these out, share them and take action:

1. HC Cover Note to Leaders, Final.doc (a digital version of the email above)
2. HC Bulletin Insert 10-23-09 Final.pdf (the one-stop nationwide parish bulletin insert)
3. HC Pulpit Announcement & Prayer, Final 1.doc (a how-to for distributing the materials)
4. HC Ad Saving_Lives_Flyer_FINAL.pdf (a flyer to be placed on bulletin boards, etc.)

Note especially this Suggested Prayer of the Faithful:

"That Congress will act to ensure that needed health care reform will truly protect the life, dignity and health care of all and that we will raise our voices to protect the unborn and the most vulnerable and to preserve our freedom of conscience. We pray to the Lord."

This prayer perfectly illustrates the main themes I have been harping on throughout this debate - that health care reform, as it currently stands, is not truly pro-life and universal, and that it contains no respect for (Catholic) conscience protection. These are glaring shortcomings that urgently need to be addressed!

Action items:

• Please ask your pastor if he intends to use these materials. If he is not aware of them - forward them to this post on AmP so he has access to them. Or, print them out and bring them to him personally.
• Perform the action items described in the materials I've provided in this USCCB bulletin insert.
• Pray that health care reform not be passed unless it is truly universal and pro-life.

Health care reform could be voted on as early as next week. These materials need to be in the hands of Catholics starting this weekend. Thank you for your efforts in serving our bishops and getting the word out. Godspeed.

Quote of the Day: Self-appointed George Tiller replacement

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, friend of the late abortionist George Tiller, on why he wants to take over Tiller's late-term abortion practice:

"I have abortion on the front of this building, because I think abortion isn't a four-letter word. It's a part of life."

Further cognitive dissonance:

[Carhart] who once wanted to be a preacher, stopped going to church around 1989, for his own safety. He found a different calling.

Tomorrow, just before and after performing abortions, Carhart will pray at the bedside of his patients. (CNN)

I can't help but think of Isaiah 5:20-21 - "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness ... Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem!"

At least, I hope it's self-deception at work:

Carhart doesn't mask his language. He's open and honest about what he does, sometimes uncomfortably so.

"We do kill fetuses," he says. "It dies because we give an injection into the fetus that causes the heart to just slowdown."

That's like saying, "Yes, I killed him, I held his head under water until his breathing just slowed down."

There's another name for that: murder.

Politics: Pelosi attacks Democrat Stupak to keep abortion funding

It's a sad day when our Catholic Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) continues to exert pressure on another Catholic representative (Bart Stupak) when the only "crime" he is guilty of is trying to make health care reform pro-life:

"Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.

During an interview on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill.

"The Speaker is not happy with me," Stupak said.

However, the Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: "I'm comfortable with where I'm at. This is who I am. It's reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it."

A portion of the interview can be accessed here. The entire interview can be seen here." (The Hill)

NARAL Pro-Choice America calls Stupak's actions a "shameful abortion ban plot."

In their email fundraising, they claim Stupak and others are trying to "impose an abortion ban on private insurance plans in the reformed health system." They go on to claim: "Millions of women could lose coverage they already have."

Well ... it should come as no surprise to AmP readers that NARAL's claims are a lie. Pro-lifers are trying to only maintain the status quo when it comes to abortion funding, and yet pro-aborts are claiming we are trying to make pro-life inroads in our amendments. 

I wish we were, but given the landscape, the best we can do is try to hold the line. And even those amendments are being voted down at every turn. 

===

Also, on a somewhat related note, I have it on good authority that Nancy Pelosi continues to attend Mass and receive communion here in Washington DC. As recently as this past Sunday.

Pelosi: campaigning for anti-life legislation for one day, receiving Communion the next.

There really is no excuse.

Outrageous: Nun volunteers at abortion clinic - and what can be done about it

Not only has this dominican nun been volunteering at abortion clinics for "at least six years", but her religious superior is actually defending her choice even now that it is under public scrutiny!

"A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently - but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.

Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.

... Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.

... Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there." (LSN)

My father, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters, lays out at least three provisions in Canon Law which could be grounds for Sr. Donna's dismissal from the religious life.

Action items:

• LifeSite news is asking for individuals to respectfully express concern to the Prioress of the Sinsinawa Dominicans - Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP at Spatmul@aol.com.
• I think it is also appropriate to contact the local bishop to make sure he is aware of this scandal. I believe the Sinsinawa Dominicans are in the Diocese of Madison, WI. Their communications director can be contacted at brent.king@straphael.org

House Democrats Have Almost Enough Votes for Pro-Abortion Health Care

A reminder of the political stakes we are facing:

House Democrats said today that they have almost enough votes to get a pro-abortion health care bill through the chamber. The votes they say they have collected include almost enough for the government option, which would expand abortion funding even further.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked her top lieutenants this week to conduct a vote count to determine where members of the party stand on HR 3200, which pro-life groups oppose.

Three House committee have approved different versions of the bill, all of which include massive abortion funding and mandates, that Pelosi and top Democrats will meld into one measure.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairman Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, said today that House Democrats have secured about 210 votes for a bill with the controversial public option.

That's just eight votes short of the 218 needed to approve the pro-abortion bill. (Lifenews)

To fill in the picture, it also appears that the Obama Administration is improperly (and illegaly) using the Health and Human Services website to promote these pro-abortion health care bills. Fantastic.

update - worse and worse:

• AP: Abortion divides House Dems in health care debate
• LN: House Democrats Likely Won't Allow Vote to Cut Abortion From Health Care Bill

Patrick Kennedy: Catholic Church Fanning ‘Flames of Dissent and Discord’ by Opposing Health Bill Over Abortion Funding

Patrick Kennedy needs to go back to CCD class:

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) told CNSNews.com that the Catholic Church is doing nothing but fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it will oppose the health-care reform bill under consideration in Congress unless it is amended to explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.

“I can’t understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time, where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the fact that we’re caring and giving health care to the human person--that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com when asked about a letter the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had sent to members of Congress stating the bishops' position on abortion funding in the health-care bill.

“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?” said Kennedy. “If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don’t think it’s productive at all." (CNS News)

He is effective, however - the number of errors in his statement make it very not-worth my time to answer them.

Baltimore City Council targets pro-life pregnancy centers

Archdiocesan newspaper for Baltimore The Catholic Review:

Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and 10 members of the council are sponsoring a bill that Catholic leaders believe harasses pro-life pregnancy support centers.

City Council Bill 09-0406, “Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers –Disclaimers,” would require pregnancy support centers to post a disclaimer noting that they do not provide abortion or contraceptive services. Centers that do not comply would be fined $500 per day.

In an Oct. 16 letter to Rawlings-Blake, Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien said the bill targets non-profit organizations whose mission is to help women carry pregnancies to term. He said it is “well-known” that pregnancy support centers are exclusively focused on assisting women in their choice for childbirth, and do not provide abortions or contraception.

So much for supporting women with crisis pregnancies.

Stupidity: Pro-aborts launch petition so *seniors* can keep abortion coverage

Someone should tell the folks writing NARAL's petitions that marijuana isn't legal (yet). They actually have posted a petition - and almost 32,000 people have signed it - which reads in part:

"Anti-choice extremists at the Family Research Council are launching an outrageous media and lobbying campaign claiming that Congress' health-care reform bills will deny seniors the medical care they need in order to pay for abortion."

Yes, you read that correctly - NARAL is worried that seniors might lose their medical coverage for abortion.

I'm very sure that Family Research Council is not worried that seniors will be paying for their own abortions. Seniors paying for abortions out of their medical coverage, after all, does not seem to be a very large demographic. 

FRC has been airing very powerful ads showing that abortion coverage and rationing of care for the elderly are both major (separate) problems in the current health care reform plans. But apparently NARAL's media division really thinks FRC could be so stupid as to think that senior citizens are paying to have their pregnancies aborted. 

And NARAL is happy to launch petitions referencing this as a real issue!

Often in the debate over abortion, the pro-life movement is caricatured as "unscientific".

Well, maybe we can begin to make the charge that the pro-abortion movement is illiterate and biased.

Video: No Government Funded Abortions! Period.

Great video, great organization, great cause:

SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser clears up the story on abortion and health care reform. Contact your Senators today at www.sba-list.org/healthcare and tell them America doesn't want any government funded abortions, period!

I'm honored to call Marjorie a friend. Go support her activities at Susan B. Anthony today!

{Ph/t: Jimmy}

Record pro-life rally in Spain gathers over a million demonstrators

A spasm of life in the Catholic country of Spain:

A massive crowd of pro-life Spanish citizens captured international headlines Saturday after marching on the country's capital to protest plans to loosen abortion restrictions in the country.

Estimates for the numbers of those in attendance varied, with mainstream media such as CNN and the New York Times reporting simply "thousands" or "tens of thousands." However, the Christian Post reports that Madrid's regional government estimated the numbers of attendees at around 1.2 million, and a spokesman for one of the pro-life organizers said 1.5 million people attended. The U.K.'s BBC and numerous other media outlets also put the crowd at over a million. According to Agence France Press, police put the number at 250,000.

... Since 2000, Spain's abortion rate has climbed a whopping 59% - compared to a 10% rise in Britain and France, and falling rates in Italy and Germany - earning Madrid the title of the "abortion Mecca" of Europe from local pro-life leaders. The country now sees the killing of over 100,000 children in the womb each year. As many as 1 out of 5 of its pregnancies end in abortion.

... Saturday's rally also received endorsement by leaders of the Catholic Church in Spain. The Catholic News Agency reports that Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Tarazona voiced his support for the March last week in a pastoral letter, warning that Europe is 'terminally ill' due to abortion. (LifeSiteNews)

Bad: Democrats keep abortion in Baucus bill with party-line vote

The new health care bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Baucus has the best chance (out of any of the bills currently being debated) of making it into law.

No surprise then that Democrats are making extra-sure that abortion funding stays in its provisions:

The Senate Finance Committee turned back Republican-led efforts to tighten abortion restrictions in health-overhaul legislation, and the Senate's top Democrat said he wants to bring a sweeping bill to the floor in two weeks.

... The sparring over abortion Wednesday underscored the sweep of the health legislation, which not only makes fundamental changes to a key segment of the U.S. economy, but also inflames passions on a range of social issues.

Mr. Baucus said he didn't want to add abortion to the debate. "This is a health-care bill," he said. "This is not an abortion bill. We are not changing current law."

... But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) said the limits in the current law could easily lapse. He called on Mr. Baucus to fold the language into the health bill, making it permanent law. "Let's codify it," he said.

... The Hatch amendment failed 13-10 on a mostly party-line vote. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) joined Democrats in opposing it, while Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota was the lone Democrat in favor.

The panel also rejected an amendment Mr. Hatch said was needed to ensure the government doesn't discriminate against health-care providers who refuse to perform abortion procedures for moral or religious reasons. (Wall Street Journal)

Baucus tries to claim that his new proposal is moderate and bi-partisan.

Apparently he doesn't think preventing your tax dollars from going to abortions, or allowing Catholic and other Christian health-care providers an exemption from performing abortions, even counts as moderation or a bi-partisan position.

So who is more extreme, Sen. Baucus or Catholics who don't want to be involved in abortions?

And - just as a reminder - yet again Mr. Obama has failed to deliver his promise that abortion would not be covered in his health care proposals and that there would be an exemption for those with religious convictions on the issue.

The health care debate is entering the late game - when exactly will Mr. Obama fulfill his promise?

Health Care: 183 House Members urge Speaker Pelosi to cut abortion funding

Think abortion-funding-in-health-care is a "distraction" (in the words of our President)?

183 members of the House of Representatives don't think so:

Letter From 183 House Members Urges Pelosi to Allow Vote to Cut Abortion Funding

A bipartisan group of 183 members of Congress sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter on Monday urging her to allow a vote on an amendment to cut the massive abortion funding and subsidies from the main health care "reform" bill in the chamber.

HR 3200 currently allows for both abortion subsidies and mandates and pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan wants the opportunity to propose an amendment to remove the funding from the bill.

"We urge you to allow members of the House to vote their consciences with regard to abortion and health care reform by allowing consideration of an amendment to prohibit government funding of abortion," the letter says.

The lawmakers say HR 3200 "radically departs from current federal government policy of not paying for elective abortion or subsidizing plans that cover abortion."

Although Pelosi, President Barack Obama and other abortion advocates say the three different versions of HR 3200 House committees approved do not fund abortions, the lawmakers say one version specifically does.

Here is the letter in PDF format.

Video: Cardinal Mahoney tries to dodge abortion in health care question

From CNSNews.com's Edwin Mora, an incredible video interview recorded yesterday:

Let's look at what Mahoney said when asked if he agreed with Cardinal Rigali that abortion funding is in the health care reform proposal being drafted in the House of Representatives:

“This is way beyond my field. My field is immigration. I really haven’t kept up on that, and I spend all my time on this other. You have to get somebody who spends time on that.”

When asked whether he believed abortion should be funded under the health care bill, Cardinal Mahony said: “No, but that’s what the president said, too, so.”

My initial thoughts:

• I'm waiting for liberal Catholics to condemn Mahoney's response as inadequate because he basically claims to be a "single issue" Catholic bishop. "My field is immigration"? Excuse me? Since when does focusing on one issue get a bishop off the hook of being informed about other issues? *crickets*
• "This is way beyond my field"? Sounds like the infamous "This is above my pay grade" response which Obama gave at one point to a similar question (and even he later admitted this was a flippant answer).
• Is Mahony so oblivious to current events that he is unaware of the actions taken by Cardinal Rigali, of the warnings issued by over forty US bishops, of the numerous reports in mainstream media outlets that confirm this simple fact that abortion funding exists in the House version of health care reform?
• Finally, Mahony pulls the rug out from underneath his own feet when he says "No, but that’s what the president said, too, so." ... what?! I thought Mahony said he was uninformed? And yet he is evidently informed about what Obama has said. So, Mahony knows what Obama has said about abortion, but not what the US Bishops have said.

Absolutely incredible.

Video: Blood Money Film about abortion

Many folks have emailed me asking to post this, so here it is (warning - some graphic images):



Here is the movie website. Much more information from LifeSiteNews.

Politics: Lies, and the Obama who tells them, and the Faux Catholics who let him

I like to consider myself a patient guy.

But this sort of stuff is infuriating to me:

• Obama, in his own BlogTalkRadio discussion with the "American Faith Community", cited the claim of funding of abortion as one example of the false claims that are being circulated by critics of his health care reform initiative."
• Obama's campaign organization - which is still alive and kicking months after his election into office - is humming the same false tune.

Now, the majority of Americans understand that abortion coverage is in the health care reform bill. This despite mainstream media organizations trying to deny and downplay it, and despite Obama's massive spin campaign.

But what really gets me about all this is how various fake Catholic organizations are helping Obama and his surrogates lie. Jack Smith is hot on their trail:

"The administration's ploy throughout the campaign and his presidency has been to seek or invent amenable decoys for the actual voices in faith communities that oppose his radical anti-life agenda. Many of these decoys are pure hacks like the folks at Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance. This is a shameful exercise by an American administration to displace legitimate political opposition by substituting staged conversations with supporters faking as faith groups - and presenting an in-house love fest as concensus building."

Obama and his supporters have perfected the tactic of claiming the other side is doing what they do better. In this case, Obama and his supporters have been shouting from the rooftops that the otherside is making up stories about what is in the current health care proposals.

Well, the joke is on us, because on the issue of abortion in health care, it's Obama and his supporters who are making. stuff. up.

Here are six facts which prove abortion is in the current health care legislation.

Can anyone imagine abortion not being included in this plan, which is predominantly supported by the left and far left, who take abortion-on-demand as a human right and (often) argue that universal health care is a human right?! The fact that they are silent on this issue logically means we must be vocal.

I'm all for arguing matters of prudence, for debating differences of opinion, for contrasting competing political viewpoints, but seriously .... this is a simple matter of facts. And the fact is that abortion is in health care. And shame on Obama, his surrogates and especially some Catholics for denying it.

Shock: Kourtney Kardashian decides to Keep her Kid

You don't often see AmP covering a story reported by People magazine, but then again, you (sadly) don't often see a megastar facing a crisis pregnancy and decide to keep her child. People magazine doesn't quite know how to handle it:

"Kourtney Kardashian's unplanned pregnancy forced the shocked reality TV star to make one of the most difficult decisions in her life: Would she have the baby or terminate the pregnancy?

.... "I looked online, and I was sitting on the bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty from having an abortion," she recalls. "I was reading these things of how many people are traumatized by it afterwards."

After scouring the Internet, Kardashian says she started to realize that an abortion wasn't an option for her. "I was just sitting there crying, thinking, 'I can't do that,' " she says. "And I felt in my body, this is meant to be. God does things for a reason, and I just felt like it was the right thing that was happening in my life."

The Catholic Mommy Brain blog, basing her comments on the CNN coverage of the story, names four simple reasons Kourtney decided to keep her child: God, the internet, her doctor and the father.

God is always at work, and we can continue to show the truth about unborn human life through the internet, as well as applaud doctors and support fathers who help women facing difficult choices about "unplanned" pregnancies.

It's also worth noting that Kourtney attended four years of Catholic high-school. Though she went on to a Methodist University, I would hope that both places taught her the Christian values she is now calling upon to make the human choice, in the face of great odds. Let's say a prayer that her brave choice is not savaged by the same media culture that is so-often at-odds with authentic sexual fulfillment, human dignity, and a culture of life.

I hope the rest of America tries to keep up with this Kardashian.

Important: Abp. Chaput's advice on nationalized health care

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, who I have immense respect for, has dedicated his latest column to the subject of health care. 

Typically I excerpt paragraphs from articles to give AmP readers the highlights and save them time, but in this case, I would simply urge you to read the whole thing (it's fairly short).

It's such a joy to encounter informed, rational debate and advice on health care from one of our bishops. Much space on AmP has recently been devoted to shooting down insane and deceptive perspectives on the issue. This is unfortunate because it may leave some with an impression that I only have critical things to say about health care reform as it is now offered. Well, it's true I have many critiques to make, but I'm also happy to engage in constructive conversation.

Anyway, after you have read Abp. Chaput's piece, consider a few comments of my own:

• I think it's brilliant that Abp. Chaput reminds us Catholics that the Church invented "common ground" on controversial issues. We're always in favor of true common ground that does not contradict our fundamental Catholic (and human) principles.
• Simultaneously, Catholics can support "in theory" the concept of health care reform but vehemently opposed a particular attempt at health care reform when, as Abp. Chaput says, "the devil is in the details." The details of the plan, in my personal opinion, flunk it, not the concept of reforming health care (how about, for instance, tort reform, anyone?). 
• If, as Abp. Chaput says, this health care plan explicitly includes mandated abortion access, or sneaks it in through another mechanism, this is "simply ... a form of lying." We should be angered at those who lie about their intentions, for it is an added offense beyond their determined support to make Catholics fund what we know to be the murder of innocents.
• Abp. Chaput is right to call out the amendment recently offered by Lois Capps (D-CA) as a "shell game". The current state of the health care bill, I confidently argue, is pro-abortion.
• Obviously, Catholics need to be vocal and involved in this debate. Amen a thousand times.

Regarding, finally, Abp. Chaput's four key principles that should guide the development of a health care plan "in light of the mixed and sobering track record of national health plans in other countries" (take note of this warning!) ... I think this health care plan currently fails on all four counts:

1. The elderly and disabled I do not believe will be treated "with a special concern" in the current plan. Rationing is a reality of every government benefit. Eugenics and pressure to low-income and disabled groups is a phenomenon of most every government-run health care plan I've come across. Look at England and our own state of Oregon.
2. The current plan contains no conscience clause protection for individuals or institutions!
3. The current plan funnels money to abortion under such euphemisms as "comprehensive planning services" and "mainstreams" their funding and pays those who provide them.
4. The current plan is economically unrealistic and unsustainable. Seriously, the government can't keep the postal service in the black, what's to make us think it can run 1/6th of our economy any better? Their first step has been to draft a gargantuan bill, so dense in its bureaucracy that not even the officials who are to vote on it have read it!

I could continue, but since this is an ongoing debate, I'll pause it here with my first round of impressions.

Video: Congresswoman admits abortion in health care legislation

Pro-abortion advocates are still trying to claim that the health care legislation currently under discussion is "abortion-neutral."

Evidently then, these pro-abortion advocates are in disagreement with democrats who are preparing to vote on the bill!

Pro-abortion Rep. Zoe Lofgren contradicted the pro-abortion lobbying-group talking points in her recent town hall meeting, by admitting abortion will be covered as a benefit:

LifeNews has a full report.

So who are we to believe, pro-abortion advocates who don't want to see the bill changed, or a representative of Congress who may soon be in a position to vote the bill into law?

At least the congresswoman is being honest about the facts, and her position.

White House health care "Reality Check" page ignores abortion

The White House has launched a page on their official government website where citizens can "get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform."

They call it "Health Insurance Reality Check."

Gee, I wonder where they got this idea from?

[It's amazing that, under Obama, the White House has become its own advertising engine. We must be in uncharted territory here with the White House becoming a proponent of partisan legislation. 

I mean, can anyone imagine "www.WhiteHouse.gov/iraqwar" being considered a correct use of the Oval Office when Bush was president? Wouldn't Bush have been criticized for overreaching the proper roll of the Executive branch?]

Notably absent from the "reality checks" is one on the claim that abortion is included in the legislation.

I mean, it's going to be pretty hard to "reality check" so many facts.

update: I'm happy to see Steve Ertelt at LifeSite has picked up on this telling omission. 

AP claims government insurance "would allow coverage for abortion"

Yesterday I pointed out a very simple way to answer the abortion-in-health-care question.

Today, the AP takes a long look at the complicated situation, and arrives at the same conclusion.

If you're looking for the cliffsnotes version: the government proposals will allow abortion coverage.

A very simple way to answer the abortion-in-health-care question

Even my post of this morning does not quite clear up the question about the degree to which abortion is covered/mandated/funded in the proposed government plan/proposed government regulation of private health care insurance.

Dan Gilgoff, who tries to look at both sides of this issue, can't find a definitive answer.

My opinion is that we're making this way too complicated.

What we have to realize is that proponents of abortion access will not be satisfied until abortion is completely mainstream and commonplace. They have long sought to define access to abortion as a feature of basic health care - no different than having your tonsils out.

If the new proposals for government-run health care and government regulation of private insurance did not leave the door open to universal abortion access and coverage, the pro-aborts wouldn't be doing their job. The only reason they are actively seeking to keep the health care bills unchanged is because they are happy with what they see. If they were unsatisfied, after all, they would use their tremendous resources to get the bills changed more to their liking.

Instead, because the new proposals will allow them to sneak in abortion access and funding in some permutation later, they are actively attacking those who are trying to sound the alarm now, notably the Family Research Council.

To make my point one last time, an abortion-neutral or abortion-restrictive proposal would be a step back for their agenda. And so as long as they are content with what is moving forward, we should be gravely concerned.

Naming names in the ongoing abortion-in-health-care debate

It should be a simple question - what is the status of abortion in the health care debate?

I work in DC politics, and even I'm confused. 

But I'll try to provide some clarity.

The committee scramble that took place last friday before the House of Representatives went into its August recess came down decidedly against the side of life, as the National Catholic Register points out:

Some pro-life Democrats joined with Republicans serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to amend the bill to prohibit funding for abortion services except in cases where a woman’s life is in danger or her pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

But that amendment was reversed later in the day, when the Democratic leadership successfully pressured a pair of Democrats on the committee to vote against the amendment during a second vote, sending it down to a 30-29 defeat.

The narrow margin in favor of the abortion mandate is an opportunity for Catholics and other pro-life Americans. They can lobby Congressional Democrats en masse, warning them that they are risking the defeat of the entire health care reform initiative if they insist on its inclusion in a bill that many Americans already have grave doubts about for other reasons.

... if the bishops are backed by their Catholic flocks as they continue to fight against the provision in the health care reform bill, that could change as the bill continues to progress through Congress.

I blogged about this committee back-and-forth the day it happened over at APP. The bad guy masterminds in this case were Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) and Chairmen Henry Waxman (D-CA, pictured above).

Here is how the declared catholic members of the committee split:

Catholics voting against the amendment (anti-life) were Representatives John Dingell (D) of Michigan, Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts, Frank Pallone, Jr. (D) of New Jersey, Anna Eshoo (D) of California, Mike Doyle (D) of Pennsylvania, Charles Gonzalez (D) of Texas, Jerry McNerney (D) of California, and Peter Welch (D) of Vermont.

The Catholics who voted for the amendment (pro-life) were Bart Stupak (D) of Michigan, Charlie Melancon (D) of Louisiana, George Radanovich (R) of California, John Sullivan (R) of Oklahoma, Tim Murphy (R) of Pennsylvania, Phil Gingrey (R) of Georgia, and Steve Scalise (R) of Louisiana.

Catholics have a major say in who gets to be a member of congress. So it's good to get into the habit of having a pen and paper handy. This way we can make more informed decisions as the next election approaches.

Re-defeat: Abortion measure passes *then fails* in House

update: the post below has been rendered meaningless by an 11th-hour move by Rep. Waxman (D-CA) which brought the amendment up for a second vote, and then defeated it by a one vote margin:

An anti-abortion amendment to a sweeping health overhaul bill was voted down in a House committee late Thursday — a dramatic reversal just hours after the measure initially was approved.

The amendment said health care legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases. It was approved in the Energy and Commerce Committee after conservative Democrats joined Republicans to support it.

But committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., invoked House rules that allowed him to bring up the amendment for a second vote, despite Republican objections.

This time, one conservative Democrat — Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee — changed his vote from "yes" to "no." And a second conservative Democrat who hadn't voted the first time — Rep. Zack Space of Ohio — voted "no."

It was enough to take down the amendment on a 30-29 vote.

See how dead set the Democrat leadership is on keeping abortion in this health care bill?

===

original post....

I typically don't post blogs in the evening, but this is important news which shouldn't wait till morning:

Lawmakers have amended a sweeping health overhaul bill to ensure it does not require coverage of abortions.

The anti-abortion measure was approved late Thursday in the House Energy and Commerce Committee as conservative Democrats banded with Republicans to support it.

The amendment says health care overhaul legislation moving through Congress may not impose requirements for coverage of abortion, except in cases where a woman's life is endangered or her pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

The amendment would have to survive the full House and Senate.

The measure was offered by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, along with Republicans Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Roy Blunt of Missouri. (AP)

What we should take from this:

1. Despite the attempt by pro-abortion groups to hide the truth, abortion is in this health care plan until the point that it is explicitly excluded. That's why we needed an amendment to rule it out.
2. We're not there yet. This measure still has to be approved in the full House and Senate. Keep sending in the emails, making the phone calls, and find ways of meeting with your representatives as they go back to their home districts in August.
3. Removing abortion coverage is a big step, but the health care reform plan still has serious flaws which also need to be examined over the coming weeks.

But that said, praise God that some measure of sanity has been introduced into our nation's health care debate. Our efforts are meeting some success ... now let's redouble them.

Text: My response to Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL

Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote a letter to the editor and published it in Politico yesterday (ph/t Salon) in response to a piece by Tony Perkins of Family Research Council (available here):

"Tony Perkins took 729 words to obscure a simple fact: What he and his allies are demanding is a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market (“Keep Abortion Funding Out of Health Care Reform,” July 28).

Today, private plans can choose whether to cover the service — and most do. If Perkins succeeds, women who purchase private insurance that now covers abortion services will lose that coverage.

The bills moving through Congress now do not reference abortion, so it’s obvious that Perkins is injecting this issue unnecessarily into the health reform debate in hopes that it will bring down the whole endeavor. That’s outrageous."

Here is my response, which I will try to have published on Politico:

Nancy Keenan took 106 words to cover-up a simple agenda. What she and her allies want is the greatest expansion of federally-funded abortions since Roe v. Wade. She is incorrect in claiming that Tony Perkins is "demanding ... a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health insurance market." Instead, he wants health care reform to respect existing laws which prevent federal funds from paying for abortions. The difference is that Perkins says his goal, while Keenan hides her own.

Keenan incorrectly claims that Perkins wants women to lose their private insurance coverage of abortion. Instead, Perkins is only talking about the government's proposed public plan, which is not private insurance. It is one thing for private individuals to decide what their money pays for (such as abortion coverage in private insurance), it is another for government to force taxpayers to pay for abortion, to the exclusion of existing laws which the majority of Americans support.

Perkins is not "injecting" the issue of federally-funded abortion into the bill, like Keenan claims. Otherwise, why have Democrats resisted every attempt to have abortion coverage excluded? If there is anything outrageous here, it is Keenan's efforts to obscure the facts.

I'll update this post if my response is published.

Lessons to be learned from a woman who sailed the "abortion boat"

Last October I was first made aware of the Dutch "abortion boat", a project of "Women on Waves" that attempted to spread awareness of abortion (and abortifacient pills) in countries that still have laws against these things.

Now I come to find out from a Netherlands news source that the "abortion boat" is putting down anchor for the last time. Steve Ertelt at LifeNews has a summary of an interview conducted with a member of the organization that ran the boat, Rebecca Gomperts.

I found snippets of the interview interesting. It's a rare chance to see an abortion advocate dis-engaged from the fight and speaking frankly about their opinion on what is happening.

"The abortion boat is a myth," says Gomperts. "There are people who think we provide practical help all over the world. Of course it's a pretty sight: a ship entering a harbour full of women saying: abortion is a right. And then there will always be people wanting to stop the boat. The result is a symbolic fight that speaks to the imagination." 

Insight: abortion advocates over-sell their accomplishments. In my first reporting of the story, I can't remember Women on Waves ever trying to dis-abuse people about their actual activities not including abortions.

... But in [Gomperts'] personal life there has been a drastic change. The woman who ten years ago said she had made a conscious decision to remain childless, is now the single mother of a three-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl. 

Insight: Life catches up to you. You can make yourself think almost anything you want, but as you grow older, some human desires can't be totally forever. She's a mother, even if it has changed her views.

"The other day I was giving a lecture at a school in the Bijlmer [a heavily immigrant part of Amsterdam, Ed.] I was shocked by the anti-abortion sentiment among young immigrant girls there. And the youth activities of the Evangelical broadcasting corporation draw tens of thousands of visitors. These are signs that lots of things are changing in our society. Opposition to abortion is growing." 

Insight: Good news, indeed. Some things ought never be taken for granted: abortion on demand is one of them. The world wasn't always this way, and it can change back, if people's hearts change.

Have you become more understanding towards your opponents over the years?

"If you believe that every life has to be protected I can imagine that you would be very passionate about that. Uncompromising. But it bothers me that they have no respect for people who think differently. Anti-abortion activists feel that everybody should act the way they think they should."

Insight: Does Gompert then believe every life ought not be protected? At least she is consistent, in a horrible sort of way. I don't see how I am supposed to respect the view that all innocent life ought not be protected.

And this most interesting of all....

Is a rapprochement even imaginable?

"No, I think it is impossible for proponents and opponents of abortion to ever come together. We're talking about two entirely different philosophies here. There is no room for discussion. To me, the fact that they want to limit other people's ability to make their own decisions will always be unacceptable." 

Insight: Gompert is speaking honestly here. Her statement further confirms a lurking suspicion of my own that common ground initiatives proposed by ardent pro-aborts will come to nothing. There is simply no common ground between those who think innocent lives may be killed and those who think they may never be killed.

What must happen on the part of pro-aborts is a change of mind and heart. Helping this conversion take place is what we must commit ourselves to accomplishing, and I believe one important step in that process is to hold fast to our position in support of life. Only from that high ground can we begin to reach out.

In the crosshairs: Let's defeat the DeLauro-Ryan scam bill!

This bill (HR #3312) needs to be defeated, and with your help, I think we can.

Pro-abortion groups are throwing all of their weight behind it, and they are trying to pick up enough "pro-life" defectors to make the case to the rest of us that it represents "common ground" legislation....

.... It isn't. It simply throws $700 million dollars to pro-abortion organizations. And they already get plenty.

"But wait!" They'll say. "This isn't funding abortions." Sure it is, it's funding abortion providers. Their argument is like saying a piece of legislation doesn't fund drinking, it funds bars. You know, because plenty of people go to bars to access the valuable nutritional content of pub food, so we're just giving money to the bars so they can put on more happy hours.

I will provide information about HR #3312 and why it is important to defeat it. If you scroll to the bottom of the post you will find action items to make sure that it is defeated. 

Please link to this post if you are convinced. Let's get a lot of people involved on this one.

===

Summary/Analysis:

HR #3312 in summary reads: "To provide for programs that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." 

It is currently in committee, and is waiting to get to the floor of the House to be voted upon. Tim Ryan (D-OH) sponsored the bill, along with 12 other democrats, notably Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

The main thrust of the bill is to increase Title X funding for Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups. It also mandates that Medicaid would universally cover both abortion and contraception. 

How much money are we talking about? As I said above, $700,000,000.00. That's right: seven hundred million dollars. If you had seven hundred million dollars dangling in front of you, and weren't scrupulous, wouldn't you think of a really clever argument to argue that you deserve it?

The bill includes enough other provisions to make the excuse that it isn't another veiled attempt to pump more money into these for-profit organizations. The bill provides heavy coverage for contraception, with the argument being that this will reduce abortions.

A country saturated in contraceptives, however, does not drive down the number of abortions. Efforts in the UK to increase contraception access have only resulted in the deepening of the abortion epidemic.

The bill's sponsor, Tim Ryan, who is Catholic, claims to be pro-life. He is not, or at least, he never votes pro-life. He recently voted to have taxpayers in DC fund abortions. As Jack Smith writes, "In the current and last sessions of Congress Tim Ryan had the exact same voting score from National Right to Life as Rosa DeLauro - 0." Jack Smith provides more background here.

Who likes this bill? Radical pro-abortion lobbies like NARAL. It's a ruthless cycle: abortion groups lobby for more money, so they can propose further legislation ... that gets them more money. Meanwhile the "powerful" pro-life movement continues to chug along on blogs, email lists, and concerned folks like you picking up the phone and sending emails to your representatives. I know, we have so much to gain, right?

Anyway, when a movement runs out of ideas and arguments, they can do two things: have a hard think about their position or attempt to co-opt/shut-up the opposition. The pro-abortion lobby has chose the second option. "Faith in public life" is a good example of marginalizing pro-lifers and claiming a consensus for their position when there is not one. Some Christian pastors have come out in support of the bill, but not one Catholic priest has voiced support for it. Because faithful Catholics understand that contraception and funding abortion providers is not going to drive down the number of abortions in this country, or promote a culture of life.

In fact, as I blogged about last week, the USCCB has taken the unusual step of specifically targeting this bill as unacceptable, calling it the "Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009."

And if you want to know Pope Benedict's mind on the issue of governments promoting contraception, read what I wrote about that on July 8th. (hint: he's against it.)

If you are reading this far, you are probably interested in this sort of thing enough to be curious about the strategic opportunity here. 

In the wider picture, the DeLauro-Ryan bill is a preview of coming attractions: What DeLauro-Ryan floats as legislation, should it pass, is the type of "solution" the Obama administration will offer to the problem of abortion in White House-sponsored initiatives. 

In other words, Obama's long-awaited solution to the number of abortions is - not surprisingly - to further fill the coffers of the radical pro-abortion lobbyists and organizations which helped him and his associates win the White House and Congress. Sadly, it's still true in much of American politics that to find out what's happening, you have to follow the money. In this case it goes abortionists --> Obama --> abortionists (through Congress).

But if this bill is defeated, we may still have the chance of proposing counter-solutions acceptable to true pro-lifers, from people who sincerely want to see the number of abortions reduced by supporting women and helping them make the right choice, which is always to protect innocent life and give it the same chance we all deserve.

===

Action: 

The most effective thing you can do is call your congressional representative and tell them simply "Vote NO on the DeLauro-Ryan bill." If they want a reason: "It funds pro-abortion organizations which already receive too much federal funding." If they want an alternative bill to support on this issue, there is one (see below). The congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121 (don't hang up if it keeps ringing, it takes time for an operator to help you, but it will happen eventually). But you can also be completely done with the call in under a minute. The staffs are courteous and are there to take calls from people like you on issues like this.

You can also send a short email to your representative through this official form. Simply write the same thing and heck, give them the link to this post if they want to know why.

If you want help spread the word around the web, you can refer folks to this post, join a Facebook group I created (Stop DeLauro-Ryan) or Twitter about it (I propose the hashtag #stopryan).

As far as an alternative proposal, there is a good bill already in Congress, introduced by Lincoln Davis (D-TN) - HR #2035 which reads in summary: "To provide for programs that reduce abortions, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents." 

It is supported by Cardinal Rigali (head of USCCB pro-life) and numerous other Catholic and pro-life organizations, as Jack Smith explains. It is also bi-partisan: in the House it has 28 democrat and 12 republican co-sponsors! That's common ground, because pro-lifers can actually support it, on both sides of the aisle.

[photo credit: Third Way]

Prof. Kaveny needs a re-write on Pope and President

University of Notre Dame Law School:

M. Cathleen Kaveny, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, addressed the question “Why does the American Catholic leadership seem to be focused on abortion, while the Vatican appears willing to view that issue as merely one among many on which to judge a political leader?” in a New York Times blog.

Evidently, on a planet far, far away, Obama is still the man he claimed to be in his campaign ads. Sadly, the far, far away planet is the writing dens of notable, liberal Catholic academics like Prof. Kaveny. Well, I would challenge her that she needs to update her fact sheet and move beyond the campaign rhetoric of Mr. Obama and actually take a look at the facts. Reality, after all, has a habit of exploding poor arguments.

Reading through her comments, she makes a very convincing case - if we didn't have the experience of the last six months to jolt us out of these false hopes. Let's take a look at a few of her claims with red correction pen in hand:

From different vantage points, [the pope and president] are both grappling with the same challenge: how to protect and promote human dignity in an era of increased globalization, how to work together to solve the problems like the worldwide economic crisis, global warming, and food insecurity.

Let's see, so far Mr. Obama has repealed the Mexico City Policy (funding oversees abortions), removed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, passed a failed cap-and-trade bill which has negligible international environmental impact at huge domestic cost, allowed an abortion mandate into his socialized health care policy, and - in the eyes of many - failed to support the people of Iran and Honduras in their struggle for a more just government.

Yes, the two men may be grappling with the same challenge, but how has Mr. Obama performed? Politics is absolutely about different groups seeking to right the same problem, but what matters is who comes up with the better solution, and who follows-through. Prof. Kaveny can assign the same legal problem to all of her students, but only those who reach the correct conclusions should receive high marks. Prof. Kaveny wants to give Mr. Obama a perfect score for just walking into the classroom. 

The Vatican, in my view, respects Mr. Obama as a man of moral seriousness, who in turn respects those who disagree with him on serious moral issues such as abortion.

Okay, can I ask an awkward question? Just what the heck does "moral seriousness" mean? No one, to my knowledge, is claiming that Mr. Obama is a morally "unserious", as if he's some sort of clown. We can all agree someone is morally "serious" and still conclude that they are philosophically, prudentially wrong. Prof. Kaveny is a legal scholar - would she give a student an "A" simply for being "morally serious" were he or she to make a legal claim in an academic paper for chattel slavery being just? Of course not! All the "moral seriousness" in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if you are seriously wrong in your moral conclusions.

Cardinal Cottier is impressed by the fact that Mr. Obama recognizes the tragic nature of the abortion choice, and the fact that he is committed to finding ways to reduce the need for — and therefore the numbers of — abortions. He highlights that Mr. Obama is committed to protecting the consciences of healthcare workers who morally opposed to abortion.

First of all, Prof. Kaveny is happy to selectively quote Vatican officials, finding the ones that she thinks supports her argument. But second of all,  Mr. Obama has never - to my knowledge - committed himself to reducing the number of abortions. That would mean he has to admit there is a problem with a woman expressing her "choice" to have an abortion. And he is too much enmeshed in the pro-abortion agenda to ever say that. And just try to make the point with an abortion advocate that reducing the need for abortions equals reducing the number. They will never admit this, for the same reasons Mr. Obama cannot and has not. Finally, search the new health care bill for a "robust conscience clause." It doesn't exist. So what world is Prof. Kaveny still living in? It doesn't look much like the real one you and I are inhabiting. 

Prof. Kaveny, in other words, makes two claims without providing any proof for them. And she also commits a logical fallacy when she presumes that reducing the need for abortions would result in reducing the number of them. It's almost as if she has never engaged a pro-abortion advocate in debate on this issue. Abstract conclusions make little difference when we are facing practical problems with real people. Especially these abstractions are contradicted by the concrete details.

Okay, three points seems enough. Of course, there are other areas where I profoundly disagree with Prof. Kaveny's essay. To conclude, she needs to update her talking points and respond somehow to the actual events which have transpired in the last six months. Until some liberal Catholic can do that, we're still playing word games. Just like Mr. Obama wants to see us do.

Catholic Common Ground: Reject the DeLauro-Ryan bill

Working in DC politics I get to observe a lot of situations which frustrate me, but this concerted effort to deceive pro-lifers into supporting a bill which hurts the cause of life in America gets me angry.

What especially angers me is how the Catholic pro-life movement is treated by pro-abortion supporters of this bill. Just read what "Catholics for Choice" president Jon O'Brien wrote:

"Not everybody agrees with the bill. The nation's 400 Catholic bishops have not signed on. However, we should remember that their 400 votes count for little when taken beside the nation's 67.5 million Catholics--the majority of whom will support the bill's provisions."

Excuse me? Is this sort of argument supposed to appeal to me as a faithful Catholic?

The USCCB Prolife office has taken the extraordinary (and needed) step of forcefully repudiating the claims of DeLauro-Ryan bill supporters:

Let the Taxpayers Beware!

It should be called the Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009.

Instead, co-sponsors Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) have given their “new” (though largely recycled) bill the promising title “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act.” Sponsors describe the bill as a “common ground” approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions, one that should appeal to opposing sides in the abortion debate.

Sure, the bill is dressed up with some funding for after-school programs, and some (very poorly crafted) efforts to provide support for pregnant students. But make no mistake. The bill is “about access to birth control,” according to Congressman Ryan (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” May 19, 2009). In the same interview, Ryan explained: “We have to have birth control and contraception offered to these poor women who don’t have access to contraception, period, dot. There’s no other way we’re going to be able to reduce [abortions].” About what you’d expect in a bill whose co-sponsors enjoy a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL.

... let your member of Congress know that the Ryan/DeLauro bill cannot fulfill the promises in its title. The real abortion-reduction bill in Congress now is the Pregnant Women Support Act (S.1032, H.R.2035), which needs our support.

I wrote earlier today about a chance to defund Planned Parenthood subsidies in the new Health and Human Services fund allocations. Faithful Catholics should also reject the Ryan/DeLauro bill as a deceptive ploy to give more money to big business abortion.

update: for the record, Rep. Tim Ryan deserves especial blame here, as Jack Smith points out:

Rep. Tim Ryan is not prolife. In the current and last sessions of Congress Tim Ryan had the exact same voting score from National Right to Life as Rosa DeLauro - 0. While once prolife, Ryan's record is now as extreme on abortion as Rep. DeLauro and Senator Barbara Boxer - supporting even taxpayer funding of abortion in DC.

The lie that Tim Ryan is prolife is very convenient for the true backers of the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act". Planned Parenthood and NARAL can say the bill represents "common ground". But claiming the bill is "common ground" and that Ryan is prolife are both lies.

Obama on federal funding for abortion: "Let's not get distracted"

Yesterday Katie Couric asked Obama the question that Catholics and other Americans are very worried about:

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (CBS)

I explain why I think Obama's response is deeply flawed over at this American Principles blog entry.

Briefly: how are we to take seriously Obama's claim that he wants to reduce the number of abortions in America when his attitude about the single-greatest expansion of abortion access in our nation's history is ... "let's not get distracted"?!

update: and now that I think about it for a few more seconds- if Obama doesn't want abortion to "distract" us, why not simply rule out covering them with taxpayer dollars? That strikes me as a very simple fix.

Urgent: Abortion in Obama's Government Health Care Plan

Here is some common ground on the abortion issue I'm willing to offer: I'm not going to pay for them.

The White House continues to dodge the issue.

The US Bishops have released a statement which says:

“No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion. Any such action would be morally wrong.”

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh is also blogging away: "Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way [of reforming health care]."

For the record, on prudential grounds, I think the health care "reform" bills being pushed through the House and Senate ought to be completely scrapped.

But I am sure Catholics would agree with me on this: we cannot allow our government to foot the bill (with our tax dollars) when anyone in this country wants to have an abortion.

On an important related issue, Jack Smith gives us an update on the Ryan-DeLauro bill:

The Ryan-DeLauro Bill looks to be presented as the President's much vaunted "common ground" approach to reducing abortion - appealing to both pro-life and pro-choice leaders. Problem is, it is sponsored by two pro-choice legislators. By his consistent moves in the last two legislative sessions, Rep. Ryan has given up any claim to being pro-life. As we mentioned above, he is actually working against pro-life Democrats.

This Ryan-DeLauro bill is meant to derail any truly common ground approach to aid women in crisis pregnancies and their families. In its previous incarnations the bill is top heavy with hundreds of millions for Planned Parenthood and lite on actual support for women. Its unveiling this week will reveal whether it gives more to Planned Parenthood and abortion providers than before.

That is my fear and should cause concern for all who have supported common ground efforts to reduce abortion. Now more than ever, it is critical for Democrats and Republicans to show support for the Pregnant Women Support Act written by Democrats for Life and strongly supported by the USCCB.

So, to recap: no taxpayer-funded abortion in government health care bills, and no large-scale sneaking of taxpayer-money to the major abortion providers in this country.

If forcing all Americans to pay for abortions they know are morally wrong counts as "common ground" in these people's minds, then they were never actually serious about reducing abortions in the first place.

action: if you are looking to do something about all this, consider taking a few moments to sign this petition circulated by the Susan B. Anthony List: "Tell the Senate Abortion is NOT Health Care."

Abortion "common ground" = Dissent from Church teaching

I've recently discussed both the various "common ground" ideas (here, here, here & here) being floated by pro-abortion advocates, as well as Obama's recent pick for Surgeon General, a Catholic who appears to support Obama's pro-abortion stance.

My disagreement with pro-abortion advocates on these "common ground" issues are not simply matters of perspective - there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between our two positions, I believe.

Thus, when WaPo writes an article entitled "Surgeon General Pick's Stance on Abortion May Clash With Church's", it is meaningless for Common Ground to describe it as "Obama's Surgeon General Picks Believes in Common Ground on Abortion Issue."

What the Surgeon General actually believes, is what Obama thinks about the abortion issue, not what the Church teaches about it. And yes, there is a difference. Especially when you have to apply pressure on his administration to not include universal funding of abortion in their new health care proposal (more on that later).

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues wanting to have it both ways, resulting in ridiculous statements such as this one from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claiming that President Barack Obama made the same pledge to Pope Benedict XVI about reducing the number of abortions that he made to Planned Parenthood as a presidential candidate in 2007 (when he promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as President).

Can we honestly believe the claim that Planned Parenthood and Pope Benedict will be satisfied with the same solution to the scourge of abortion?!

Gilgoff: Sotomayor staying mum on abortion views

Dan Gilgoff reports:

On the abortion front, I'm struck by two dynamics at work in Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. One: Republicans are attacking the idea of a constitutional right to abortion with a unity and forthrightness not seen in years, grilling Sotomayor on how the Constitution could be construed to contain such a right.

Two: As Republicans lift their voices on the issue, Sotomayor is evading all questions about her personal views on abortion. While recognizing that she considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law, Sotomayor has gone out of her way to obscure her personal position, disavowing signs that abortion rights supporters and opponents have taken as evidence of her pro-abortion rights views.

... Sotomayor is not going to vote to overturn Roe. But her obfuscating on other abortion-related questions raises questions about how she'd rule on restrictions on late-term abortions and on consent laws. And those are the kind of cases—as opposed to direct challenges to Roe—that would be more likely to come before her on the Supreme Court.

I'm sure her team of advisors have taken note that her personal position on abortion is seriously out-of-touch with mainstream America. So much for that oath to tell the whole truth to the American people. How can she single-out abortion (and its many related issues) as a topic upon which she has no opinion besides the "settled law" of the land? As a Supreme Court justice she will be charged with making the law of the land!

Furthermore, there is clearly interest on this topic. The AP's story on the subject was the top story on Yahoo! News yesterday (the largest internet news portal in the U.S.).

I'm looking forward to today's testimony by Charmaine Yoest at Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings. She's the lone representative from a pro-life organization to be invited.

Study: Unborn babies can form memories by 30 weeks

And, as NewsBusters reports, ABC's Good Morning America is careful to keep these scientific results separate from the fact that, in this country, it is legal to kill a 30-week-old human being that can, among many other human activities, form memories:

A new study found that unborn babies may start to develop memories as early as thirty weeks into a pregnancy, but ABC’s “Good Morning America” ignored the study’s potential impact on the abortion debate, especially concerning late term abortion.

Reporter Sharyn Alfonsi’s July 15 segment covered the pivotal study without even mentioning abortion. Anchor Chris Cuomo attempted to broach the issue during a follow-up interview but fell short.

Alfonsi touted the study, “Day by day, a fetus goes through remarkable changes. By 30 weeks, opening and closing their eyes. Making facial expressions. And now, a new study reveals, forming memories. Yep, barely three pounds, but already able to remember. For the study, researchers used a fetal monitor to make a buzzing sound against a mother's belly. The noise and vibrations startle the fetus and it typically reacts by moving. But with repeated applications of the buzzing the fetus learns its okay and does not have to react. And four weeks later, when the fetus is buzzed again, many don't react at all, because researchers say they now remember the sound.” [Read on...]

In 2005, for instance, over 15,000 abortions occurred past the 20-week mark in the pregnancy.

LifeBusters continues:

So if the study is correct, in many of those cases, the babies aborted were developed enough to have short- and perhaps long-term memory.“Good Morning America” preferred to focus its report on prenatal care. Alfonsi visited a prenatal yoga class and one pregnant woman said the class was helping her “be more conscious of my own emotional and physical state.”

The memory study, Alfonsi said, “… is proof that we need to be more careful about what experiences we expose babies to in the womb.” Like the experience of, say, murder?

Let's be clear, George Tiller killed unborn children at this late stage of development.

Taxdollar-paid abortions are too much for Winters, as they should be

I usually disagree (strongly) with Michael Sean Winters over at America magazine.

Today however, he got an issue (mostly) correct. 

As background, yesterday I laid out very clearly how both the House and Senate versions of Obama's health care bill will allow federal taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and how Democrats are trying to hide this fact from the general public.

Three more important points to realize:

1. If left unchanged, this legislation would bring about the biggest expansion in abortion access since Roe v. Wade. The stats clearly show that whenever federal funds are made available for abortions, more abortions happen. It makes Obama's promise to reduce the number of abortions meaningless.
2. A majority of Americans oppose the idea of making all Americans (including those who oppose abortions) pay for procedure. This is an unpopular, left-wing agenda position that the Democrats are sticking to right down the line.
3. Democrats have thwarted several attempts by Republicans to include a clause saying abortions are to be excluded from the covered procedures. The Democrats, in other words, have had many chances to fix this and have categorically chosen to keep abortions under the umbrella of federal funding.

Well, all of the above is too much for Michael Sean Winters, who writes:

"... To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none."

I could use this as a selfish opportunity to point out that, on multiple occasions, I have exactly predicted that this would happen: that Obama and the Democrat leaders in congress are more chained to the liberal agenda (which necessarily includes unlimited access to abortion, at least according to the current model of Democrat preferment) than they are concerned about promoting an authentic culture of life. 

But I don't care about being right. I care about babies and my tax dollars being spent to kill them, and more of them dying because my tax dollars are available to make that killing less of a hassle.

So, I readily join Michael Sean Winters in drawing this line in the sand. May it be the first of many lines drawn closer and closer to the minimum standards the Gospel of Life calls us to boldly make.

Senate Health Care Plan *does* fund abortions with taxpayer dollars

Pro-abortion advocates in the House and Senate have been trying to hide the fact that, under their new health care plans, taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. It's amazing to watch them try to squirm out of actually admitting it (as reported by FRC):

HATCH: "...Would this include abortion providers? I mean, it looks to me like you're expanding it to... for instance, Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?"
MIKULSKI: "It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman's health clinic, it would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics. It would, um, it does not expand in any way expand a service. In other words, it does not expand, um, uh, or mandate abortion service."
HATCH: "No, but it would provide for them."
MIKULSKI: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate."
HATCH: "Well, I would have a rough time supporting it on that basis. I just wanted to get that clarified. Thank you."
Later...
HATCH: "Madam Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in [about] not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support."
MIKULSKI: "...No, I would not, uh, be willing to do that at this time." 

FRC also reports the sad news that an attempt to scratch abortion coverage was defeated 11-12:

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) was the only Democrat to stand his ground and vote for life. If you'd like to help FRC in this battle to ban taxpayer-funded abortion, log on to our new site, www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org, dedicated to promoting the rights to life and conscience.

Now Planned Parenthood is desperate to get (more) federal money. And here's how they put it:

"We've been deeply concerned that women would be the first targets in health care reform and now it's happened. Yesterday, anti-choice Senator Orrin Hatch launched an attack on Planned Parenthood and the U.S. senators who were trying to help women."

Take a look at this Planned Parenthood claim:

"Instead of telling the truth, [Sen. Hatch] claimed that it mandates abortion coverage in an attempt to drum up opposition. This is an outright lie — and we need your help to fight back."

But if Planned Parenthood is telling the truth, and abortions won't be covered... then why did Sen. Mikulski oppose adding language to explicitly exclude abortions? Because Planned Parenthood is lying.

Jodi Jacobson at my favorite-radical-abortion-agenda-website-to-expose RH Reality Check mimes the Planned Parenthood talking points and claims that abortions won't be covered. Well she's right - abortions aren't covered directly. Abortion providers are covered. But that's not really a difference, is it?

Because the pro-life movement is under fairly constant attack these days for using "incendiary" language, let's extract a few lines from the super-popular liberal blog DailyKos:

[Senator] Hatch! I pay for YOUR health care, I've paid for your health care for years with my tax dollar.

Now, you'd better listen up and get it straight about health care for American women.

And you can take your anti-woman religiosity and stuff it up in your place where the sun never shines.

We American woman are getting mighty tired of the idiotic shenigans of Republican Senators, from David Vitter, the whoremaster of Louisiana, to Larry Craig of Idaho who tap dances in men's bathrooms, to John Ensign of Nevada and his corrupt crony Tom Coburn of Oklahoma who heads the secret sweety payoff to silence committee.

Ah, don't you love that liberal temperate language?

LifeNews recommends taking this action if you are concerned about your tax dollars paying for abortions:

See the members of the committee and send them an email or call them in response to the vote for the pro-abortion Mikulski amendment. Tell them you don't want abortion coverage in health care.

Phone calls are more effective than emails. And don't be scared about picking up the phone - the staff of these offices are used to hearing from the constituents back home. Add your voice.

update: video:

Photo: Criminal stupidity at an abortion clinic

Some individuals have an ideological commitment to abortion, which allows them to permit it and protect those who perform them ... even in circumstances where common sense would be raising red flags everywhere.

Perfect case in point, the crazy (and outrageous) things being perpetrated by an abortion clinic in Rockford, IL:

What people in the world can demonstrate such pathetic math skills (a minor point), such offensive anti-religious attitudes, condone rape and incest, cover-up for sexual predators, and still be permitted a license to engage in medical procedures covered by insurance agencies while enjoying protection under federal and local laws?

The answer: abortionists.

Noted: White House says Obama, Pope will have "frank" talk on abortion

With less than a day or so before Obama meets with Pope Benedict, interest is definitely picking up:

The White House is saying that pro-abortion President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI, the head of the Catholic Church, will have a "frank' talk on abortion when they meet on Friday. Obama is currently in Italy for the Group of Eight summit and the two will meet after the conference concludes.

"I think there will be a frank discussion [about abortion]," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One, according to an AP report.

On subject like abortion where Obama is out of step with the pro-life teachings of the Catholic faith, Gibbs said "even if we don't see eye to eye on everything, there are steps that can be taken on a number of issues that will show progress, whether it's on something like unintended pregnancy or adoption." (LifeNews)

'Cuz, ya know, it went so well when Cardinal George met with Obama and had a "frank" talk on the issue:

[Cardinal George on meeting with Obama] "It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion).' But we can agree on a lot, and we do, and that's why there is so much hope. I think we have to pray for him every day."

... "He said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.' So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."

That was back in April ... and what has changed in the meantime?

*crickets*

Outrageous: Absolutely vile’ advice column tells men how to pressure pregnant women to abort

Sadly ... tragically ... this is the evil voice I hear behind so much of the radical abortion-on-demand movement:

A men’s advice column advising men how to encourage their pregnant girlfriends to abort provides an unsettling glimpse into the realities of abortion. One pro-life leader characterized the column, which highlights some men’s personal desires to avoid the burdens of parenthood, as “a primer for coerced abortion.”

The advice column was authored by Isabella Snow, who is described as a Sex Education Correspondent. It was published on AskMen.com, a risqué site which claims seven million monthly visitors.

The column is bluntly utilitarian in style, focusing on pregnancy’s and abortion’s effects upon the relationship of a man and a woman. It ends each paragraph of advice with a summarizing tip labeled “prenatal prep.” The avoidance of children and fatherhood is a repeated theme.

Snow begins by noting that while male readers may hope a woman will “stick to the original plan and terminate the pregnancy,” some women may suddenly want to become mothers “despite previous agreements.” She advises the male reader to try to make his girlfriend consider his wants and desires by approaching her “correctly” and taking care with his “presentation.”

Snow advises discussing a possible abortion on a sofa at home to provide intimacy and “reduced eye contact,” purportedly to make it easier for the woman to speak “openly.”

“You’ll also want to take care with your word choice; pregnant women tend to feel like they’re carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant,” Snow adds. “You can’t just talk about having an abortion the same way you’d talk about having a cavity filled.” (CNA)

CNA updated their story after publishing it, saying "When CNA attempted on Wednesday to access the article again on Askmen.com, we were redirected to the site's main page."

In other words, there is still enough common sense in some of the world to provoke a sense of shame in those who have long since discarded such emotions in pursuit of utility.

But every once in awhile, the mask is discarded long enough for us to see the selfishness of men which is encouraged, and the exploitation of women that results from a cultural that tries to sever sex from new life.

Huh? Justice Ginsburg thought Roe was to allow government eugenics

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made some shocking comments to the New York Times magazine on Tuesday:

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. [bolding mine]

What did she just say? That Roe would legalize abortion, and then through Medicaid funding, those abortions would be readily available to "populations that we don't want to have too many of." In other words, primarily low-income persons, and particularly, inner-city african americans, who represent the majority of those who undergo the procedure.

That's despicable, Justice Ginsburg. 

Ed Morrissey has commentary.

Video/commentary: Really, the world needs more contraception?!

Over the past couple weeks I've been focusing on a ploy by pro-aborts to convince pro-lifers to agree on contraception as a "common ground" solution to the abortion rate in America.

Now I disagree strongly that America needs contraception, for many reasons. One of them is demographic. This video has almost 10 million views on YouTube, and while I disagree with the editorial "tone" of the video, the facts it is using are compelling.

Jump farther into it where it begins looking at numbers and predictions.

Now, after seeing that ... do we really think what the world needs is contraception (and abortion)?

I've discussed demographics before at length on AmP, especially back in early 2008:

For any questions about world religions and demographics, Philip Jenkins is the scholar to read. I don't always agree with his ecclesiology, but his knowledge of the worldwide landscape is unparalleled, and especially the situation in Africa. His 2006 article for First Things, "Believing in the Global South" is a good place to start.

For those who are looking for a book-length treatment, one might read "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South", "The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity" or "God's Continent: Christianity, Islam, and Europe's Religious Crisis" (in which he claims that the "Islamification" of Europe is being over-dramatized, but Richard John Neuhaus disagrees).

That's a good place to start reading if you don't believe the West is contracepting itself out of existence.

"Rhetorical Strategy and Reality Reduction"

I know I lamented in my previous post that certain groups of individuals produce problematic copy at a rate that far exceeds my freedom and ability to refute it, but I can take a stab at one or two as time provides.

Michael Sean Winters always provides plenty of opportunities, like his short essay "legislative strategy and abortion reduction" published a couple days ago in the National Catholic Dissenter.

It appears that liberal Catholics have all agreed among themselves in recent weeks that it's time for them to come out of the closet about supporting contraception, or at least the distribution of contraceptives when the alternative - supposedly - is pregnancies resulting in abortions.

As brief backstory, there are currently two bills being discussed which focus on reducing abortion.

Winters comes out - surprise, surprise - against the US bishops and supports the Ryan-DeLauro bill ("The Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act", which is bad) over the bill introduced by pro-life Democrats ( "The Pregnancy Women Support Act", which is good).

Winters admits his Ryan-DeLauro bill "includes funding for contraception and extensive sex education." Now I bet, at this point, we are all somewhat aware of the sorts of things which are considered acceptable in public school sex ed. classes (Clearly, we need more lessons in pornography and masturbation in our highschools!). That last sentence in parentheses was sarcasm, by the way.

I could point out Winters' sly rhetorical attempts to make the case for legislative pragmatism, to remind us that politics is the art of the possible, and recommend to us that compromise is the best path to progress, but really all his points boil down to the same thing - "give up your principles."

I'll let him say that in his own words:

"Compromise is not always a bad word and on the urgent matter of reducing the abortion rate, made more urgent by the economic downturn and consequent rise in the abortion rate, Catholics can in good conscience support a bill that is not their first preference but is still preferable to doing nothing."

Why is this bill preferable to doing nothing? It floods the market with (more) contraceptives (which Winters apparently sees no problem with - sorry Pope Benedict and the Magisterum); the bill is far-and-out preferred by radical pro-abortion groups as a way to further their agenda (here's one example); and at the end of the day the bill is basically a massive money infusion for parasitic organizations like Planned Parenthood, who see abortion as darn good business.

In the social encyclical Pope Benedict released this week, he says in Paragraph 28:

One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples ... [and] questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways.

Not only does the situation of poverty still provoke high rates of infant mortality in many regions, but some parts of the world still experience practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.

Now, I don't think I'm stretching the pope's words one jot when I claim that Pope Benedict thinks it's a bad idea for governments to promote contraception. Frankly, it's more than bad - it's evil. As in never-to-be-done evil.

Winters thinks its preferable for Catholics to support a bill that allows the government to promote contraception than for them to do nothing. And he doesn't even seem to admit the possibility that Catholics and other pro-lifers, standing strong, could lobby behind a far-better bill that doesn't have the same flaws I mention above.

I disagree with him on both counts, and I would argue that I have the Pope and the bishops on my side. 

What exactly does Winters have on his?

Government-funded abortions in my own (DC) backyard

I detail the how over at APP this morning, as well as what can be done to stop it. The bishops have also weighed-in.

Report: Obama meets with Catholic reporters

As I reported earlier today, this morning Obama met with representatives of Catholic newspapers, and CNS has a report.

The list of organizations in attendance was a who's-who list of liberal Catholic print publications, with just enough Conservative publishers to appear balanced (actually, just one - the National Catholic Register, because Vatican Radio isn't American and CNS is USCCB-sponsored, and therefore an obvious choice). 

Anyway, not only were liberal publications National Catholic Reporter and America magazine invited (which I predicted), but also Commonweal and Catholic Digest. A religion reporter from Washington Post was invited as well. Of course, no invitation was extended to Catholic World Report or Our Sunday Visitor - they might ask awkward questions, you see. 

As for what was said, it is so discouraging to see that Obama continues to bring up the example of Cardinal Bernardin unchallenged. Today he told the Catholic reporters that "his encounters with the cardinal continue to influence him, particularly [the cardinal's] "seamless garment" approach to a multitude of social justice issues." 

Obviously, Obama is choosing to be selectively influenced, because Cardinal Bernardin himself went on record with the National Catholic Register in 1988 and said: ""I don't see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and ... [feel] that abortion is a 'basic right' of the individual."

Cardinal Bernardin went on to say in that same interview:

"I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don't hold anybody's feet to the fire just on abortion. That's a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it."

Now, if ever there was a golden opportunity to ask Obama what he would say in response to these words of Cardinal Bernardin's, it was this morning when the current publisher of the same magazine which originally published the Cardinal's words - Fr. Owen Kearns of the National Catholic Register - was seated at a table where Obama, once again, began to claim the mantle of Cardinal Bernardin.

... but I bet you it didn't happen. And that's why people like me are not invited to Obama's meetings. Because there are some questions he can't handle, and his team knows who to invite to ensure those questions don't get asked.

Some "listening session."

update: National Catholic Register's Tim Drake with Fr. Owen Kearns take on the meeting. Each participant was allowed to ask one question. I'd like to hear what was asked, and how Obama responded.

On APP: How abortion might be snuck into government health care

Over at the American Principles Project blog, I explain how I think abortion coverage might be included in the new government health care plan being debated in the House of Representatives. Scary stuff. 

I also include information on how to contact the members of the Senate Finance Committee who could make sure it isn't included. Abortions aren't "basic coverage", and we shouldn't have to pay for them.