Planned Parenthood Scared at Abortion Amendment

Senator Ben Nelson

As the Health Care Bill in the US goes through the Senate, Senators Ben Nelson (Democrat) and Orrin Hatchis (Republican) are offering an amendment based largely on the Stupak amendment which was passed on the bill as it went through the House of Congress.

"My Senate amendment would ban any public funds from paying for abortions under a new health care reform bill" - TheHill.com

For regular updates on the progress of the Health Care Bill where it relates in particular to the abortion issue, keep an eye on Jill Stanek's blog.

Planned Parenthood is really, really upset and its president, Cecile Richards today emailed supporters, asking them to email their senators opposing the Nelson amendment.

Dear Supporter,

The Stupak abortion coverage ban that passed the House of Representatives last month is headed for the Senate right now - and we urgently need your help.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and Democratic Senator Ben Nelson are planning to introduce an amendment to the Senate health care reform bill that is virtually identical to the Stupak amendment. With both Republican and Democratic support for this damaging amendment, it is entirely possible that the resulting health care reform legislation will eliminate access to private health insurance coverage of abortion for millions of women.

Cecile Richards

This is incorrect as the Senate bill would actually allow women to buy plans that cover abortion even if they receive federal aid, however it would require insurers to segregate public and private funds and use only private money to pay for abortions. Any public option could offer abortion coverage, as long as federal money wasn't used. This would keep government funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman's life. - Omaha.com. Cecile uses the emotive term "millions", however it is very vague as no time-frame is given. With over 1.5 million abortions being committed in the US every year, it is impossible that "millions" of women would have access to private health insurance eliminated each year, so what is she talking about? More on this here.

We cannot let that happen. We must stop them, and we need your help. Please, send a message to your senators right now. Once you've sent your message, please don't stop there. As we saw during the vote in the House of Representatives, anti-choice groups will stop at nothing to influence the vote because their goal is to outlaw abortion, no questions asked. We can't afford to let up for even a moment. Everyone who cares about choice, health care, and women must speak up now.

"Anti-choice groups will stop at nothing" - that's right, we have no morals or principles and will sink to the lowest possible level in order to further our cause - at least that's what Cecile is saying. Apparently we want to outlaw abortion with no questions asked, however this is an unfair representation of the pro-life movement as a whole. A majority of pro-lifers accept that there are occasional cases where an abortion is the best solution to a complicated pregnancy.

Every day, uninsured women, men, and families visit Planned Parenthood health centers seeking care they can't get anywhere else, and they desperately need Congress to fix our broken system to ensure health care for all. However, eliminating choice for millions of women is a price we can't afford to pay for passing health reform.

Cecile is correct here. Planned Parenthood can't afford to pay the price of having fewer abortions being done in the US. Planned Parenthood commits approximately 1/5 of all abortions in the US (305,310 in 2007), and at $400 each that's at least $122 million in revenue from abortions alone each year. - InsideCatholic.com. For each abortion that does not take place, Planned Parenthood loses out - and they hate that. Especially with the Harvard Business School case study on Planned Parenthood showing that, they face "tough economic times, a hostile political environment, and limited ability to raise philanthropic dollars in a resource constrained area of the country".

The anti-choice Stupak ban in the House and now the proposed Hatch/Nelson ban in the Senate represent a huge step backward for women. If health care reform passes with this kind of amendment intact, it would be the most serious restriction of access to abortion coverage in a generation. I can't let that happen. I hope you can't, either.

Thank you for your action today to stop this aggressive attack on women's health and freedom. Together, we'll stop the U.S. Senate from caving to pressure from the far right. I'll keep you posted on what's next.

Again, there's that creative combination of words. Pro-lifers are aggressively attacking the very health of the women of America - awful! And, Cecile warns us, we must stop the Senate from caving to pressure from the far right! It's laughable. Removing state-funding for abortion insurance coverage is hardly an aggressive attack on women's health. And if the pro-lifers in the States backing this excellent amendment are the far right, then what do we call the National Front now?

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America

They're scared, and for good reason - Nelson holds a swing vote, and the bill has to pass through the Senate in some form. This pivotal law change has huge ramifications for the abortion industry in the States and will be very interesting to watch over the next few days.

Bush: Personal Belief to Come Before Abortion

"Protections Set for Anti-abortion Health Workers", reports The Washington Post (22 August 08). An excerpt from the article is below.

The Bush administration yesterday announced plans to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health-care workers who object to abortion from being forced to deliver services that violate their personal beliefs.

The rule empowers federal health officials to pull funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, doctors' offices and other entities if they do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral or religious grounds.

"People should not be forced to say or do things they believe are morally wrong," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Health-care workers should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience."

The proposed regulation, which could go into effect after a 30-day comment period, was welcomed by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others as necessary to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways. Women's health advocates, family planning advocates, abortion rights activists and others, however, condemned the regulation, saying it could create sweeping obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion, family planning, end-of-life care and possibly a wide range of scientific research.

"It's breathtaking," said Robyn S. Shapiro, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "The impact could be enormous."

This is an excellent ammendment. Employees of medical organisations most certainly should not be forced to perform actions which conflict with their worldview. This is a long-respected principle, and it is high time that it is applied to those working in the medical profession.

Predictably, the feminists are outraged that such a suggestion could be made. Planned Parenthood is trying to raise funds to oppose the regulation change, saying

"We must defeat this new rule in order to ensure access to accurate, comprehensive health care, including birth control and abortion services, for every person who wants and needs it."

However Mike Leavitt stressed that there was nothing in the regulation that would prevent any organization from providing any type of care. "There is nothing in this rule that would in any way change a patient's right to a legal procedure," he said.- Washington Post