Updated: Nelson, NRLC, US Bishops Deem New Casey Abortion Compromise 'Unacceptable'
By Kathleen Gilbert
December 17, 2009
www.LifeSiteNews.com

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Although the full text of Sen. Bob Casey's (D-PA) proposed abortion-funding health bill compromise has not yet been released, major pro-life organizations have already called the new funds-segregation scheme "completely unacceptable" and a violation of the Hyde amendment.

Because Casey is widely regarded as one of two pro-life Democrat Senators with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), pro-lifers were concerned that Casey's amendment might be seriously considered by Nelson, who has been holding out against the bill because of its violation of the Hyde amendment.  If Nelson agreed to the compromise language, it could have been the magic bullet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been looking for to win the last vote needed to overcome a GOP filibuster of the bill.

However, Sen. Nelson told a Nebraska radio station on Thursday afternoon that he does not consider the Casey amendment strong enough to earn his support.  "As it is right now, without further modifications, it isn't sufficient," Nelson told Lincoln's KLIN radio, adding that there has been "a lot of improvement on the legislation, but the basic question on the funding of abortion has not been fully answered yet."

National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said Thursday in an e-mail to reporters that the new amendment was a "far cry from the Stupak amendment."

"This proposal would break from the long-established principles of the Hyde Amendment by providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion on demand. This is entirely unacceptable," he said.  "It is particularly offensive that the proposal apparently would make it the default position for the federal government to subsidize plans that cover abortion on demand, and then permit individual citizens to apply for conscientious objector status.

"This is an exercise is cosmetics - like putting lipstick on a legislative warthog."

In an interview with the New York Times, USCCB Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities Richard Doerflinger said that, while the bishops appreciated the goals of some of Casey's proposals, none of the proposals addressed the bill's use of taxpayer money to fund abortion-covering insurance plans. 

The bishops have vigorously and consistently rejected such funding regardless of the use of segregation schemes, as Pro-Life Chairman Cardinal Daniel DiNardo affirmed in a Dec. 13 letter to senators.  "Attempts to achieve such segregation are irrelevant to current policy, which bars federal funds from being used for any part of a package that covers elective abortions," he wrote.

In a very similar scenario, the same pro-life leaders bluntly rejected a last-minute attempt at a funds-segregating compromise in the House of Representatives offered by Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) last month.  When Ellsworth failed to find support from conservative Democrats, House leadership was forced to capitulate to the full Hyde-amendment protections presented by the Stupak amendment.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ben Nelson continues to buck immense pressure from party leadership to vote for the bill despite the abortion funding.  Unlike the House's Rep. Stupak, who had the backing of 39 other legislators, Nelson appears to be entirely alone among Democrats in holding out for Hyde-amendment restrictions.

Following a private meeting with [Alleged] President Obama on Tuesday, Nelson stated that he was sticking to his guns against the bill's abortion funding, as well as other issues.  He said the meeting was his third in eight days with the President, who has tirelessly lobbied Congress to pass his health care overhaul as soon as possible.

While Obama "made a strong case for passing health care reform now," Nelson said, "I think it still remains to be seen if it was compelling."

"I do say if nothing is done, I'm not sure what Plan B is," he said. "If Plan B is start over...it's quite possible that it just won't happen. It seems to me that we have a chance right now to fix a flawed bill."

To contact Sen. Ben Nelson:
http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact-me.cfm

LifeSiteNews.com ...

Don't think for a minute that they aren't all feeling the pressure from those of us who hold to the true pro-life position and won't compromise it.

Once again, it is time to redouble our efforts.

(Stupak Amendment: The Beginning of the End)

Blame the Bishops
Accuracy in Media Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  December 23, 2009

The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House.

A lot is being said and written about why national health care legislation is becoming a reality. The simple fact, available for all to see, is that the U.S. Catholic Bishops ensured passage of the bill in the House, enabling the Senate to move forward with its version.

Like "progressive" strategist Robert B. Creamer, the Bishops believe that health care is a right to be guaranteed by government. This position has driven the debate and has rarely been challenged by Republicans. The debate over abortion has been mostly a diversion. Perhaps it has been planned that way

As we were the first to disclose, Creamer, an ex-con and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, emphasized using "the faith community" to mobilize support for universal health care by highlighting the morality of providing medical care to people in need. His book, Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, emphasized that "We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right."

Now compare this to what the Bishops have said.

"Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care,'" they say. They go on, "For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans. We seek to bring a moral perspective in an intensely political debate; we offer an ethical framework in an arena dominated by powerful economic interests."

Reform, the Bishops said, would "require concerted action by federal and other levels of government and by the diverse providers and consumers of health care. We believe government, an instrument of our common purpose called to pursue the common good, has an essential role to play in assuring that the rights of all people to adequate health care are respected."

Also this: "For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans."

The only real chance of defeating the health care legislation came when the bill was lacking a majority of votes for passage in the House. That's when the first deal was made. This was the deal that made all other deals possible. Acting at the behest of Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Catholic Bishops, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to a vote on the pro-life amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak. It passed and then the bill itself was approved.

But why did Republicans vote for the Stupak amendment if they opposed the basic premise of the bill? House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner got his marching orders as well. He was told by Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that the Republicans shouldn't scuttle the Stupak amendment.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE