The Health-Care Bill Will Increase Abortions In The U.S.

This is an opinion I wrote that was published in yesterday's Reno
Gazette Journal regarding the health care reform bills under
consideration in the Congress and the massive increases in the number
of abortions that will occur every year in the United States unless
abortion is explicitly excluded.

Reno Gazette Journal

July 30, 2009

Don Nelson: The Health-Care
Bill Will Increase Abortions In The U.S.

Massive
increases in abortion, the largest since Roe v. Wade, are looming because
health care proposals such as HR 3200, "America's Affordable Health Care
Choice Act," will not only fund abortion, they also will mandate coverage
of abortion on demand in virtually all of America's health care plans, preempt
abortion-reducing state limitations and protections, and create an abortion
clinic mandate. These proposals will reverse America's steady reduction in
abortions.

HR 3200 might
not use the word abortion, but unless Congress excludes abortion from being
defined as an "essential benefit," the broadly worded mandatory
categories of coverage will be interpreted by courts to include abortion. And
that's how President Barack Obama and abortion advocacy groups believe it
should be interpreted.

In July 2007,
Obama told Planned Parenthood that "reproductive care is essential care,
basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan I propose."
Private insurers will "have to abide by the same rules in terms of
providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care..." The Obama
administration said "reproductive care" includes abortion.

HR 3200 also
will create an abortion clinic mandate by requiring plans that use a provider
network to ensure the "adequacy of such network" so enrollees have
access to services covered. And once abortion becomes a federally mandated
"essential benefit," networks will need to take steps, including
establishing new abortion sites in the service area, to meet standards required
by the "health choices commissioner."

HR 3200 will
bring huge increases in abortion. The American taxpayer paid for 300,000
abortions every year between Roe in 1973 and 1976, when the Hyde Amendment
excluded abortion funding. In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office wrote that
"the federal government would probably fund between 325,000-675,000
abortions each year" if taxpayer funding were resumed. It would be much
higher because under HR 3200, populations receiving federally funded health
care would be much larger than populations on which the 1993 estimates were
based.

Abortion advocates'
claims that 18 percent to 35 percent or even 50 percent of women who would have
aborted did not abort because of the Hyde Amendment mean that there could be
200,000-500,000 more abortions every year. Sixty-nine percent of Americans
oppose lifting the Hyde Amendment.

HR 3200 makes
clear that standards in the bill or written by the "Health Choices
Commissioner" will preempt state abortion laws. This could nullify
limitations on abortion such as waiting periods, parental involvement and other
laws that could be regarded as impeding access to a federally guaranteed
benefit. (There wasn't room for this comment we submitted: These protections
and limitations, along with Hyde, have been the backbone in reducing abortions.)

Abortion must
be excluded from any health care reform bill or a massive taxpayer-funded increase
in abortions will ensue.

Don Nelson
is president of Nevada
LIFE (Life Issues Forum and Education).

Learn
More:
Click
here to read National Right to Life's briefing on abortion and health care
reform. The author, Douglas Johnson, is one of the pro-life geniuses and
tireless leaders responsible for the steady, decade's long drop in the rate and
numbers of abortion in the United
States. His policy of specific targeted
goals and public education are very much responsible for America's
pro-life shift.

It's always
an honor to participate in the public square in one of Nevada's most important and vital
newspapers, the Reno Gazette Journal.

No Reason To Fear Life After Roe or Don’t Fear Life After Roe.

It’s election time and the airwaves are flooded with apocalyptic scenarios of what will happen after Roe is overturned.  What will happen after Roe and can we live with it?  Absolutely.

 

1. First, women are not going to jail.  Abortion advocates are playing into the fear that women will go to jail.  These advocates have posted a video on You Tube of pro-life protestors saying that women will go to jail, but those videographers cannot find a single credible pro-life leader who agrees.  

 

The only people talking seriously about women going to jail are abortion advocates.  They are the ones demanding that we put them in jail when Roe is overturned-and for good reason.  Clark Forsythe says “in nearly all of the reported court cases explicitly addressing the issue of whether a woman was an accomplice to her abortion, it was the abortionist (not the prosecutor) who pushed the courts to treat the woman as an accomplice, for the obvious purpose of undermining the state’s criminal case against the abortionist.”

Many abortionists have performed over 30,000 abortions.  Planned Parenthood’s chain of clinics has performed over 3 million.  The goal is to stop abortion and the best way to accomplish that is to stop those who perform them.  The tradition of pursuing the abortionist will continue after Roe.

2. Abortion will not become illegal everywhere.  Some states have not changed their laws to accommodate Roe.  A few have “trigger laws” that will take effect when Roe is overturned.  When Roe is overturned, state legislatures will once again be able to work out laws on abortion, just as they did before Roe invalidated abortion laws in all 50 states. 

 

3. Abortion will be available for certain exceptions.  Before Roe nullified abortion laws in all 50 states, abortion was available for the life of the mother-so one would live and two not die.  In many states, it was available for rape and incest (one percent of abortions).  Polling shows most Americans favor limiting abortion to these exceptions (see www.nevadalife.org).

 

4. Abortion will continue for other reasons once abortion becomes illegal, but in far fewer numbers.  Legalization led to a 1500 percent increase in abortion.  Making abortion illegal in most instances will dramatically reduce abortion, just as other crimes are greatly reduced by being illegal. In Poland, limiting abortion to rape, incest and the life of the mother has reduced abortions more than 99 percent.

 

5. America's back alleys will not turn into rivers of blood.  In 1960, several years before legalization, Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Calderone noted that almost all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in “good standing.”  Thousands of women are not going to die without Roe.  Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL Pro-choice America says he knew that the claim that 5,000-10,000 women died every year due to illegal abortion was “totally false.”  Abortion deaths were going down before legalization due to advances in trauma care and anti-biotics.  The number of deaths due to abortion the year before Roe was 39. 

 

6. When abortion is illegal, not only will one million lives be saved every year, abortion related pathologies such as death, injury, infection, infertility, premature birth, increased alcohol and drug abuse, the increased risk of breast cancer, post abortion syndrome and many other pathologies will likewise be greatly reduced.  Women facing these decisions can be confident that the network of 3000 pregnancy centers will continue to exist long after Roe.

 

Voters should not fear life after Roe. 

Pro-Life Voting Is Working

(This is an article I wrote for a local Christian newspaper, the Christian Times in September.)

Pro-life voters should reject the long discredited claim that abortions have increased under pro-life president George W. Bush. This has been used to argue that voting for a pro-choice candidate with preferred economic policies is just as pro-life or even more pro-life because those policies would lead fewer women to abort.

 

Nonsense-and that argument is absurd.  What if the issue was slavery? What if someone said that the best way to reduce slavery was to vote for a pro-choice slavery advocate because his economic policies would reduce the need for slaves?  Pro-lifers are not content with merely reducing abortion.  We want to end it, not amend it.  Pro-lifers are not going to surrender the rights of a whole class of people (the unborn) just because an abortion candidate’s policies might slightly reduce the level of genocide against them.

 

Pro-life voting is making a huge impact.  The yearly number of abortions has fallen 25 percent in the last 17 years from 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.2 million abortions. There was an eight percent drop during the Bush years from 2001-2006. 1.2 million abortions is alarming, but it is 400,000 fewer per year.  That’s the number of all the people in Reno, Sparks, Carson and Douglas.

 

One of the biggest reasons for the decrease in abortion is pro-life legislation. Political science professor Michael New (link at www.nevadalife.org) says that pro-life legislation, like parental notification, waiting periods, informed consent and others, is a significant, if not the most important, factor in reducing the number of abortions, especially among teens.  When studying the impact of this legislation, he found that among teens, pro-life legislation has reduced abortion by 40 percent!   New also found that when pro-life laws were repealed, abortions went up.

 

The Partial Birth Abortion Prohibition Act has had a huge impact and so will The Unborn Victims of Violence Act.  There’s been a significant change in public attitudes on abortion of about 10 percent toward the pro-life position since the pro-life Republican leadership was elected and made an issue of partial birth abortion.  The public saw what happens during an abortion as the Congress debated it.  The Congressional debate made it relevant to the media and created opportunity for pro-life groups like Nevada LIFE to discuss it publicly.

 

Neither of these bills would have made it out of committee if it was not for the pro-life leadership of the Congress from 1995-2006.  Bill Clinton vetoed The Partial Birth Abortion ban.  Gore and Kerry would have vetoed both.  George W. Bush signed both.

 

These two bills, while not banning any abortions, nevertheless have had a huge impact on public opinion and are laying the foundation for the eventual end of abortion in America.

 

Finally, the Supreme Court is within one vote of overturning Roe and allowing state legislators and Congress to end abortion in America.  The next president will pick two or more justices and the oldest justices on the court are abortion supporters.  Another pro-choice justice will set back years of progress and impact abortion decisions for years to come. 

 

Pro-life voters should not be misled.  Pro-life voting has had a powerful impact on the judiciary, the numbers of abortions and the attitude of the nation.  These pro-life politicians and presidents are laying the foundation for the end of abortion in America.  A vote for a pro-choice president and a pro-choice Congress is a vote for more abortion.  

Why the Media, Abortion Advocates and the Left Hate Governor Sarah Palin

(This is an article I wrote for Nevada LIFE, www.nevadalife.org, yesterday.)   Last night's brilliant speech by Pro-life Governor Sarah Palin showed us why she has been so vilified and subjected to some of the ugliest vitriol in the 5 days between last night's speech and her acceptance of pro-life Senator John McCain's call to run for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Why the pre-speech savaging of Governor Palin? For years the abortion feminists-who have hijacked the woman's movement, have followed and promoted the advice given by National Abortion Rights Action League co founder Larry Lader (a man) to women that a woman's fertility kept her from breaking through the glass ceiling. Abortion was needed for women to advance and to achieve equality with men. In this mindset a woman's fertility and children were obstacles to be overcome. Just last year Supreme Court Justice and radical feminist and former counsel for the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg made this clear in her dissent to the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the constitutionality of the partial birth abortion ban. Ginsburg argued that women's "ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to 'their ability to control their reproductive lives.' ... Thus, legal challenges ... center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." The "Casey Court described the centrality of 'the decision whether to bear ... a child,' to a woman's 'dignity and autonomy,' her 'personhood' and 'destiny,' her 'conception of ... her place in society.'" Ginsburg was making the leading abortion feminist argument that partial birth abortion and abortion are necessary to fulfill a woman's potential and to achieve or protect her equal standing in society. Without abortion there's no equality and women cannot reach their full potential. Children are obstacles and expendable in the pursuit of these ends. That has to be news to women like Governor Palin. Abortion advocates say this another way. They argue that abortion is a fundamental right "without which all other rights are meaningless." The exercise and enjoyment of those rights depend on abortion. Incredibly, this argues that a woman's distinctive reproductive nature wars against her and that she must be liberated from her body and her children to become equal with men! She must become like men to be equal with men! That's been the message for the last 40 years from the abortion feminists. It explains in part if not in full, the abortion feminists' and media's hatred and reflexive opposition to Palin. Governor Palin's life and success repudiates all of that. She didn't need abortion. Her large family and children did not stop her from reaching her potential-not even a Down syndrome child, whom she calls her "perfect child." The exercise of Palin's incredible gifts were not and are not contingent on destroying her children or being free from commitments. Her fertility has not hindered her and she has not had to become or pretend to be a man to succeed. That is anathema to the abortion and mainstream media establishments and the nihilists on the left. Her life and success loudly proclaim that 50 million abortions were in no way necessary for women to reach their potential or equality with men. How can they live with themselves for being responsible for so many abortions and being responsible for leading so many women to think abortion was necessary? We may see a change of tone and strategy from her opponents after last night's speech. But we can still expect more opposition by the very women who say sexism has kept a woman from being president.

Attack On Palin's Daughter Shows Profound Difference Between Campaigns

(This is an article I wrote for Nevada LIFE, www.nevadalife.org) earlier this week.)   The profound differences between the Obama and McCain campaigns on abortion and what it means in real life are becoming clearer as abortion advocates and the nihilists on the political left stoop to attack Governor Palin's family and make sport of her pregnant 17 year old daughter. Early this year, Senator Barack Obama said that if one of his daughters became pregnant, he would not punish her with a child-Obama's grandchild. He would have his grandchild aborted. Governor Palin's daughter is pregnant, but the Palin family has embraced their daughter's child in utero. "Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support." The Obama campaign believes that certain human beings are expendable and that there is a constitutional right to do so. This shouldn't surprise anyone. In 2003, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama voted a second time against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. On another occasion he voted present. The bill would have recognized these helpless born alive infants as persons. Obama refused to do so. Nurse Jill Staneck testified for that bill. Staneck told how she comforted one baby who was born during abortion, but who was left to die in a soiled linen closet. The child had been rejected and aborted by his parents for having Down syndrome. They refused to hold him and the hospital refused to care for him. Obama had every chance to see that children like these were protected and recognized as persons after birth by supporting the bill. But he didn't. He was the only Senator to speak out against the bill. He did it two times. Governor Palin's fifth child Trig was born in April, 2008. Little Trig Palin has Down syndrome. Governor Palin and her family have embraced Trig's humanity and welcomed him into their home instead of treating Trig as medical waste. She said "we knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives." "We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed." This too illustrates the fundamental dispositions toward human life of the two campaigns. Palin, a busy executive (governor), wife and mother of 5, still has room in her world to embrace her Down syndrome child and her grandchild in utero. Those children are seen as punishments, expendable and obstacles to be overcome by Obama and his abortion supporters. We are in a culture war. There will be fighting for many years that will grieve our nation. No issues are more important than the right to life. When anyone is expendable, we all become negotiable. It's a war we have to win for all of us. It is clear where the candidates stand.

McCain Picks Outspoken Pro-Life Woman Governor To Be VP!

(This is an article I wrote for Nevada LIFE, www.nevadalife.org, last week.)   Pro-lifers are ecstatic this morning with John McCain's choice to be his Vice-President. If there was any doubt about John McCain's pro-life commitment, his historic selection of outspoken pro-life, pro-family Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate erases them all. Palin, the 44-year-old governor of Alaska, is strongly pro-life and is a member of Feminists for Life of America. But don't expect self appointed women's leaders to embrace her. She's not their kind of woman. But it's clear that she's a lot more like America's women than the abortion feminists. Palin is the youngest and first female governor in the state of Alaska. She won election to the gubernatorial seat in 2006 by defeating the incumbent governor and then defeating a former Democratic governor in the general election. Early this year, Palin gave birth to her fifth child Trig Paxson. Trig has Down syndrome. It's estimated that 80-90 percent of all Down syndrome children are aborted. After Trig was born, Palin said "we knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives." 'We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed." In their eyes, she said, "he's absolutely perfect." Debbie Joslin, the president of Eagle Forum Alaska told LifeNews.com "I can't help but remember Governor Palin's campaign slogan 'Take a Stand." "Her choice to value life in a very personal way speaks volumes and gives those of us in the pro-life community in Alaska cause to believe that we truly do have a pro-life leader in charge of our state." Joslin also said "when so many in our culture have chosen to devalue the lives of those who face special learning disabilities, Governor Palin shines as a great positive role model." (see Lifenews.com for more pro-life info about Governor Palin and her son Trig.) Pro-lifers can be confident that the McCain ticket is solidly pro-life. The contrast between the two campaigns couldn't be more stark or more clear. Just two weeks ago, Barack Obama spoke of "caring for the least of these." This came at the same time when Obama was exposed for refusing to support and was instead opposing legislation to protect new born children born during an abortion. The unborn child is the "least of these," the weakest members of our society. Down syndrome children are the most vulnerable because they are targeted for death by abortion. Palin's embrace of her unborn child mock's Obama's use of these words of Jesus. McCain has picked a woman running mate who truly embraces the weakest and least of our society. Shame on Obama for refusing to stand up for children born during abortion, treating them as medical waste and refusing to admit them as members of our society. McCain's pick of Palin is historic. It comes on the eve of the 88th anniversary of a woman's right to vote. Governor Palin is successful, telegenic, a governor, has a track record of public service and, is the mother of five children. She is a pro-life feminist in the tradition of Susan B. Anthony and the early feminists. She is a threat to the abortion feminist movement that has hijacked the woman's movement. Expect her to be savaged by the very women who say sexism has kept a woman from being president. The good news for pro-lifers is that after 35 years of legal abortion, 48 million abortions, and years and hours of hard work, pro-lifers are within one vote of overturning Roe. John McCain's rock solid pro-life record and his choice of outspoken pro-life Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate means we have an excellent chance of seeing pro-life policies continue and Roe being overthrown.

Pro-lifers WOULD Walk If McCain Changed Pro-life Views

I have never heard of Margaret Hoover, the pro-choice Republican I just saw interviewed by Laura Ingraham on the O'Reilly Factor, but she is absolutely wrong to say that evangelical pro-lifers will not abandon McCain in numbers to impact the election if McCain changed his views on abortion. Many of those pro-life evangelicals and pro-life Catholics who vote republican do so only because of Republican candidate's opposition to abortion and the culture of death.  They hold their noses at other republican policies.  To abandon the pro-life view would be suicidal.  This is one pro-lifer who would sit out the election if McCain changed his pro-life views.  Fortunately he won't. 

Hoover also said abortion wasn't a big issue and that it wasn't in the last couple elections.  She even said if a VP candidate supported partial birth abortion it wouldn't matter.  Ingraham was right, the pro-life issue made a huge impact in 2000 and 2004.  If Bush had not been pro-life, Al Gore or John Kerry would have been president.  It's incompetence that she said it wasn't an important issue.

If the republicans had treated the other part of the base as well as they have treated pro-lifers-the fiscal conservatives, they would be a dominant party.