Print
E-mail
Indiana Brad and the Amendment of Doom
By J.P. Duffy, For The Bulletin
Congressman Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), a former Indiana sheriff, first ran for Congress in 2006 when he was one of a number of Democrats running for Congress whose social views deviated from the national party. He ran on his pro-life views, his belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman and his support for the second amendment right to bear arms. *We're a pretty conservative bunch, and I think that I fit right in with those values of the people here,* Representative-elect Ellsworth told the press following his election victory.
The question most in the pro-life movement are asking today is what happened that would make him go so far off track on those values that brought him into office? Representative Ellsworth sincerely wants to reform the current health care system. Abortion funding continues to be a major problem of the legislation, with groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood spending hundreds of thousands in lobbying to ensure government funding of abortion remains in the bill. For the last few days he has been quoted widely in the press for promoting an abortion *compromise* that, in truth only compromises Congressman Ellsworth*s almost perfect record on the life issue.
Rep. Ellsworth*s proposal would authorize the government run public option to fund elective abortion and subsidize private plans that cover elective abortion. The language creates subterfuge by appearing to offer a restriction on the use of *federal funds* for abortion, while leaving in place the key legal authority which says *nothing in the Act* should be interpreted to *prevent the public health insurance option from providing for *.coverage of* elective abortion.
Representative Ellsworth is offering what is merely window dressing for the funding scheme already in the bill. Even The New York Times exposes the fallacy of the Ellsworth option, explaining how *Under Mr. Ellsworth*s proposal, if the public plan decides to cover abortion, it would have to hire private contractors to handle money that might be used for that purpose.*
So essentially Rep. Ellsworth has the federal government using taxpayer funds to pay a contractor to pay for the abortions. While that *compromise* might satisfy Rep. Ellsworth*s conscience, it does little to stop the problem of government funds going to pay for the killing of an unborn child. A Rasmussen poll released recently showed that only 13% of Americans want the health-care reform bill to use tax
dollars to fund abortions, clearly demonstrating that even those who support abortion do not favor taxpayer funded abortions.
It doesn*t matter what you call the funds. It doesn*t matter who is hired to collect the funds or write the checks. If the federal government plan pays for abortions, that is federal funding of abortion. It is that simple.
I truly think Rep. Ellsworth is acting out of misguided earnestness to solve a major problem with legislation he would support otherwise. However, the only solution that has presented itself is from his colleague Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak who has an amendment to keep abortion out of the health care legislation * an amendment Speaker Nancy Pelosi is refusing to allow a vote on. The liberal Speaker knows full well such an amendment could pass and she is more willing to risk the health care bill failing without abortion funding than removing the abortion funding and seeing the bill likely pass.
Rep. Ellsworth ran on the values represented by his district * when push comes to shove will he continue to represent the values of his constituents in Evansville, Indiana or Pelosi*s values of San Francisco?
Tom McClusky is Senior Vice President for FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Washington D.C. based Family Research Council.
The question most in the pro-life movement are asking today is what happened that would make him go so far off track on those values that brought him into office? Representative Ellsworth sincerely wants to reform the current health care system. Abortion funding continues to be a major problem of the legislation, with groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood spending hundreds of thousands in lobbying to ensure government funding of abortion remains in the bill. For the last few days he has been quoted widely in the press for promoting an abortion *compromise* that, in truth only compromises Congressman Ellsworth*s almost perfect record on the life issue.
Rep. Ellsworth*s proposal would authorize the government run public option to fund elective abortion and subsidize private plans that cover elective abortion. The language creates subterfuge by appearing to offer a restriction on the use of *federal funds* for abortion, while leaving in place the key legal authority which says *nothing in the Act* should be interpreted to *prevent the public health insurance option from providing for *.coverage of* elective abortion.
Representative Ellsworth is offering what is merely window dressing for the funding scheme already in the bill. Even The New York Times exposes the fallacy of the Ellsworth option, explaining how *Under Mr. Ellsworth*s proposal, if the public plan decides to cover abortion, it would have to hire private contractors to handle money that might be used for that purpose.*
So essentially Rep. Ellsworth has the federal government using taxpayer funds to pay a contractor to pay for the abortions. While that *compromise* might satisfy Rep. Ellsworth*s conscience, it does little to stop the problem of government funds going to pay for the killing of an unborn child. A Rasmussen poll released recently showed that only 13% of Americans want the health-care reform bill to use tax
dollars to fund abortions, clearly demonstrating that even those who support abortion do not favor taxpayer funded abortions.
It doesn*t matter what you call the funds. It doesn*t matter who is hired to collect the funds or write the checks. If the federal government plan pays for abortions, that is federal funding of abortion. It is that simple.
I truly think Rep. Ellsworth is acting out of misguided earnestness to solve a major problem with legislation he would support otherwise. However, the only solution that has presented itself is from his colleague Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak who has an amendment to keep abortion out of the health care legislation * an amendment Speaker Nancy Pelosi is refusing to allow a vote on. The liberal Speaker knows full well such an amendment could pass and she is more willing to risk the health care bill failing without abortion funding than removing the abortion funding and seeing the bill likely pass.
Rep. Ellsworth ran on the values represented by his district * when push comes to shove will he continue to represent the values of his constituents in Evansville, Indiana or Pelosi*s values of San Francisco?
Tom McClusky is Senior Vice President for FRC Action, the lobbying arm of the Washington D.C. based Family Research Council.
 |
 |
|
| Unborn Children Should Be Allowed A Transition Into Life | Wanted: A Return To Our Principles |
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 |
Activist wrote on Nov 8, 2009 2:06 PM:
I have been watching him ever since he won in 06. I wondered if he would represent Hoosiers, or Beltway libs. Now I see he represents the people of San Fransisco.
Not surprised. He says "I work for you" when he is talking to us directly, but then like many others, he goes inside the beltway a betrays us Hoosiers. I sent him and E-mail and said I will actively support his opposition either red or blue with both time and money. He DOES NOT represent Hoosier values. Thanks for a great article. "