Print
E-mail
Abortion Doesn’t Belong in Health Care Reform
By Maria Vitale, For The Bulletin
When you hear the phrase “health care reform,” what comes to mind? Providing coverage to the uninsured? Greater access to health care? Lower hospital bills?
Chances are you never dreamt that health care reform would mean that your tax dollars would be used to pay for someone else’s abortion—but that’s exactly what would happen under the health care reform legislation moving through Congress.
Let’s be clear—national poll after national poll has shown that Americans are squeamish about funding abortion with their tax money. In fact, when President Barack Obama lifted the Mexico City Policy, permitting taxpayer dollars to go to organizations that perform abortions overseas—it proved to be the most unpopular action of his initial days in office. So there is no public outcry for public funding for abortion—in fact, quite the opposite.
Yet, current health reform legislation would lead to federal mandates for abortion in nearly all health plans, including the new public plan. Unless Congress adopts an amendment which explicitly excludes abortion from the legislation’s provisions, America will have abortion on demand paid for by your tax dollars.
Some proponents of the health care reform plans before the U.S. House and Senate say that the Hyde Amendment, which has been in effect for decades, would prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. Under Hyde, tax funding of abortion is banned, except in the rare cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is at stake. However, Hyde would not apply to this health care reform legislation.
History shows us that, when abortion is publicly financed, the total number of abortions in the nation rise dramatically. Therefore, the current health care reform legislation in Congress would seem to contradict President Barack Obama’s stated goal of reducing abortion.
In addition, under the guise of health care reform, common sense restrictions on abortion that have been enacted at the state level could disappear. That’s because such state laws could be nullified by federal regulation or lawsuit. That would mean that such protections as parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting periods for abortion could be history. Without such protections, the number of abortions in Pennsylvania and elsewhere could skyrocket.
Whatever your personal views on health care reform, chances are you weren’t banking on it being used as a method for paying for abortions for birth control. Yet, that’s exactly what could happen—unless you contact your Congressional representative now. Health care reform should be just that—a means of making our health care system better—not an excuse to bail out the abortion industry.
As Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Pitts has said, “Let’s make it explicit that no American should be forced to finance abortions.”
Maria Vitale is the Education Director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.
Chances are you never dreamt that health care reform would mean that your tax dollars would be used to pay for someone else’s abortion—but that’s exactly what would happen under the health care reform legislation moving through Congress.
Let’s be clear—national poll after national poll has shown that Americans are squeamish about funding abortion with their tax money. In fact, when President Barack Obama lifted the Mexico City Policy, permitting taxpayer dollars to go to organizations that perform abortions overseas—it proved to be the most unpopular action of his initial days in office. So there is no public outcry for public funding for abortion—in fact, quite the opposite.
Yet, current health reform legislation would lead to federal mandates for abortion in nearly all health plans, including the new public plan. Unless Congress adopts an amendment which explicitly excludes abortion from the legislation’s provisions, America will have abortion on demand paid for by your tax dollars.
Some proponents of the health care reform plans before the U.S. House and Senate say that the Hyde Amendment, which has been in effect for decades, would prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. Under Hyde, tax funding of abortion is banned, except in the rare cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is at stake. However, Hyde would not apply to this health care reform legislation.
History shows us that, when abortion is publicly financed, the total number of abortions in the nation rise dramatically. Therefore, the current health care reform legislation in Congress would seem to contradict President Barack Obama’s stated goal of reducing abortion.
In addition, under the guise of health care reform, common sense restrictions on abortion that have been enacted at the state level could disappear. That’s because such state laws could be nullified by federal regulation or lawsuit. That would mean that such protections as parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting periods for abortion could be history. Without such protections, the number of abortions in Pennsylvania and elsewhere could skyrocket.
Whatever your personal views on health care reform, chances are you weren’t banking on it being used as a method for paying for abortions for birth control. Yet, that’s exactly what could happen—unless you contact your Congressional representative now. Health care reform should be just that—a means of making our health care system better—not an excuse to bail out the abortion industry.
As Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Pitts has said, “Let’s make it explicit that no American should be forced to finance abortions.”
Maria Vitale is the Education Director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.
 |
 |
|
| State of Our Unions: Why Marriage Matters | Why PA Shouldn't Build High-Speed Rail |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
