As explained in a February 22 release from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), posted here, the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590) contains multiple pro-abortion provisions, none of which would be corrected by the changes proposed by President Obama this week, and which in total constitute the biggest proposed expansion of abortion to come before either house of Congress for a vote since Roe v. Wade.

Today, NRLC released an updated memorandum on one of these issues — a provision that would provide a new pool of billions of dollars in federal funds that could be used directly to pay for abortion, without restriction, in Community Health Centers (CHCs).  The new memo can be viewed in a web browser here, and viewed or downloaded in PDF format here.

This particular problem was created by language that was added to the Senate bill by the last-minute Reid Manager’s Amendment, to provide CHCs with $7 billion in federal funds, with nothing to prevent CHCs from using these funds to perform abortions.  As the NRLC memo documents, two pro-abortion groups already have projects underway to encourage CHCs to provide abortions.  (The CHC problem is entirely unrelated to other objectionable language in the bill associated with Sen. Ben Nelson.)

In his February 22 list of proposed changes to the Senate-passed bill, President Obama included a proposed increase in the CHC funding from the Senate-approved $7 billion to $11 billion — still without any restriction on the use of the funds for abortion.

Earlier today (February 24), Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) was asked about this specific provision during an interview on Fox News Network; he declared that it is “unacceptable,” and also condemned other abortion-related provisions of the Senate-passed bill.

The video of the interview with Mr. Stupak is posted here.

The following statement may be attributed to Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life affiliates in all 50 states:

Any member of Congress who votes for the final legislation proposed by President Obama will be voting for direct federal funding of elective abortion through Community Health Centers, and also an array of other pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates.

The health bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) had become, by the conclusion of the Senate amendment process, the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade.  The Senate bill, as passed, contained seven distinct problems pertaining to abortion policies.  (The bill passed earlier by the House, H.R. 3962, contained none of these pro-abortion components, thanks to adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment on the House floor on November 7, 2009, by a vote of 240-194.)  President Obama today proposed “a targeted set of changes to” the Senate-passed bill.  None of President Obama’s proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill, and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program).

If all of the President’s changes were made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally administered plans), and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion.

Here is one problem, offered for illustration:  The Senate bill, due to a last-minute amendment, provides $7 billion for the nation’s 1,250 Community Health Centers, without any restriction whatever on the use of these federal funds to pay directly for abortion on demand.  (These funds are entirely untouched by the “Hyde Amendment” that currently covers Medicaid.)  Obama today proposed to increase that figure to $11 billion, but without adding a prohibition on the use of the funds for abortion.  (The House-passed bill would provide $12 billion, but in the House bill the funds would be covered by the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.)  Two pro-abortion groups, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, are already actively campaigning for Community Health Centers to perform elective abortions.  In short, the Senate bill would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers.  A memorandum documenting this issue in further detail is posted here:  http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoCommHealth.pdf

The abortion-related differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills are far, far greater than one would gather from reading superficial summaries such as those published repeatedly in the mainstream news media.  These thumbnail sketches have tended to focus exclusively and superficially on certain provisions associated with Senator Ben Nelson.  NRLC believes that the Nelson provisions are unacceptable, but the pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill go far beyond the flawed Nelson provisions.  A letter from NRLC to U.S. House members, explaining the multiple pro-abortion components of the Senate-passed bill, is posted here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetteronAbortionProvisions.html

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)  produced a 13-page memorandum that throws the many unacceptable provisions of the Senate bill into stark relief, which is posted here:  http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/life_conscience.pdf

A substantial number of pro-life Democrats in the House, including some lawmakers whose names have not been mentioned on the various published lists, have told their constituents that they are not going to vote for the Senate-passed bill because of the abortion problems.  For pro-life Democrats, President Obama’s proposal only makes matters worse. The only thing that would fix the Senate bill on abortion is permanent, bill-wide language that is functionally identical to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment adopted in the House on November 7, 2009.

The Obama proposal also would force rationing of lifesaving medical treatment, a matter that will be the subject of separate comment by the National Right to Life Committee.

The 37th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade is soon upon us and, as always, it’s a good time for reflection, and action.

Reflection upon the most disastrous Supreme Court case in American history, and the pain and suffering it has left behind. Action, to raise awareness for the daily tragedy of abortion, to stand in solidarity with the millions of Americans who oppose Roe vs. Wade and work to end its tragic legacy, and to educate those who remain uninformed of its ongoing effects.

Here in Washington, we will be showing up for the March for Life on the National Mall, and a good two-hundred thousand are expected to attend. If you happen to be in town, please stop by. NRLC will set up a table near the corner of Madison and 7th Street, and will be giving out free signs, stickers, petitions, and hot chocolate, to stave off the cold. Come join us, and several hundred thousand like-minded individuals.

If you’re not able to come to Washington, don’t think you have to stay at home. The National March for Life is only one of thousands of pro-life events held annually to remember Roe and its victims. You may already know of or be participating in a local event in your area. If not, you can go to NRLC’s State Affiliates page to find your State Right to Life group and see what they’re up to. You can go here:

If, on the off chance, there is nothing scheduled in your area this weekend, there are a few other things you can do if you’re interested:

1. Consider asking a local church about holding an event, such as a memorial service or prayer group meeting. NRLC offers bulletin inserts for churches.

2. Run a petition drive. You can download a printable copy of NRLC’s “Stop the Obama Abortion Agenda” petition from the “Downloads” tab at the top of this page. Sign it, and ask your friends, relatives, coworkers, or members of your church to sign it as well.

3. Take a look at a new video on fetal development called “A Baby’s First Months…Infinite Possibilities.” It’s high quality, professionally made video on growth of the unborn child in the womb, something worth pondering as we remember what Roe means. You can see the YouTube trailer and order the DVD at www.ababysfirstmonths.com

4. Start a pro-life contact list. You know many pro-lifers, even if you think you don’t. Consider sending around pro-life articles via e-mail or Facebook. Starting a contact list can let you quickly alert everyone you know in the event of important action alerts (congressional votes, local or national news, etc.)

5. Write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper on the meaning of Roe, or keep an eye out for online news. The mainstream media likes to downplay the number of active pro-lifers; you can leave a (tasteful and polite) comment on news articles which don’t quite “get it.”

6. If you’re on Facebook, just leave a status update on Friday in memory of the victims of abortion, or link to pro-life news.

If you’d like more information on any of these ideas, go ahead and comment or send us an e-mail. If you do something this weekend, please go ahead and let us know, it’s always encouraging to see what pro-lifers are up to.

In a three-page letter sent by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) to certain members of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 9, NRLC explains that there are six major categories of abortion-related problems in the Senate-passed health care legislation.  As the letter makes clear, the abortion-related policy differences between the Senate-passed health care bill and the House-passed health care bill are much greater than has been conveyed in summaries in the mainstream news media.

The letter, signed by NRLC Executive Director David N. O’Steen and Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, states:

“In reality, the Senate-passed bill contains provisions that would ultimately result in substantial expansions of abortion, driven by federal administrative decrees and federal subsidies.  Any member of the House who does not wish to support legislation that will produce such sweeping pro-abortion results must make their support for a final bill, on both procedural and direct votes, contingent on inclusion of the elements described [in detail in the letter].”

To view the letter in a web browser, click here.  To view or download the PDF version, click here.

A factsheet distilling the results of six recent public opinion polls regarding abortion and “health care reform” is posted here.

For an up-to-date report on the status of this legislation, click here.