Healthcare reform bill can't be fixed, say prolife leaders

Representatives of three prolife organizations spoke in a teleconference on March 19 in advance of the historic vote on healthcare legislation expected over the March 20-21 weekend in Washington DC. Tony Perkins and Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council, Doug Johnson of National Right to Life, and Richard Doerflinger of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops spoke about what they consider to be a significant expansion of elective abortion that may come about should the legislation be passed. This followed the release of a letter from National Right to Life to members of Congress that outlined that organization’s objections to passage of H.R.3590.

McClusky of NRL affirmed that the language in the bill now considered “does not protect human life,” while also noting that those congressmen who vote in favor will be scored by his organization, which tracks the prolife voting records of senators and representatives so that voters can make voting decisions about them. He said that passage of health reform legislation that would incorporate abortion coverage has been a “number one” priority for pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute.” Indeed, he recalled that Barack Obama vowed during his presidential campaign that liberalizing abortion would be at the heart of his future administration. The NRL representative also asserted that mainstream media had misrepresented positions of prolife organizations and leaders. Planned Parenthood, for example, used this as part of its “smuggling campaign” to introduce proabortion language into the bill.

Richard Doerflinger of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops noted that the Catholic bishops of the US have endorsed universal healthcare for nearly 100 years but finds the current legislation “morally unacceptable” and reluctantly opposes it. He said that he believes that if passed, the new law would circumvent the Hyde Amendment which for nearly thirty 30 years has prevented public funding of abortions. Doerflinger said that the bill would provide billions in funding for community health centers that in turn would provide abortion. The bill, said Doerflinger, would serve to collect money from contributors (who would be compelled to pay into the new government health insurance) for other’s abortions, while also severely limiting objections to providing abortion on the basis of conscience. In an interview with Spero News, Doerflinger said he would not venture to say why the Catholic Health Association came to its decision to endorse the legislation despite vocal opposition on the part of Catholic bishops.

Without specific language forbidding funding of abortion by the bill, despite proabortion Democrats’ reassurances, Doerflinger asserted that precedents set by court decisions already in place would require public funding of abortion. According to Tony Perkins, this would mean that taxpayers would be compelled to pay for abortions performed on others.

There appeared to be a consensus among the speakers that the bill, as it now stands, is irremediable because of its abortion provisions. As for the possibility that another bill, or amendments, might make the bill palatable in the future, McClusky said that “We are leery of any deal down the road. There is no way to fix the bill.” Paraphrasing Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, who has led prolife efforts to stall or kill the bill, McClusky said that “I may be slow, but I am not that slow.”

See National Right to Life letter here.