Senate version of health-care bill 'completely unacceptable,' pro-lifers say
November 19, 2009
Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic majority, has unveiled a revised version of the health-care reform legislation that won approval in the House of Representatives. Among other changes the Senate version of the reform removes the "Stupak amendment" that bans public subsidies for abortion; it was quickly denounced as "unacceptable" by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
Reid's proposal would allow for "coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs," said Douglas Johnson of NRLC. He went on to say that the proposed legislation "tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements."
In promoting the legislation, Reid faces an immediate challenge: finding the 60 votes required to close Senate debate on the proposal. Opponents of the bill have geared up for a lengthy floor fight, which could push a final vote on the bill into next year. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, for example, has said that he might read the entire text of the legislation-- which runs over 2,000 pages-- on the Senate floor.
For all current news, visit our News home page.
Further information:
- Reid lays out $849B Senate health care bill (USA Today)
- National Right to Life Committee Rejects Reid Abortion Funding Language as "Completely Unacceptable" (NRLC)
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: peggyann -
Nov. 20, 2009 8:20 AM ET USA
I believe the bishops are complicit and they need to change their stance. In the meantime, call your own Senators and voice your personal disapproval and request a NO vote on this bill. Abortion will not end, but taxpayer funds are totally unnecessary.
-
Posted by: bruno -
Nov. 19, 2009 9:20 PM ET USA
The precise language affecting federal abortion tax funding is in Section 1303.a SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES beginning on page 116. It appears as if it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure that there is at least one plan providing elective abortion services in every area of the country. It purports to account for fees going to the plan of your choice, but I suspect additional funds coming from the fed would not be subject to this rule.
-
Posted by: unum -
Nov. 19, 2009 8:55 PM ET USA
Once again the USCCB has lost their credibility on a significant moral issue by trying to be "players" in Washington. They continue to be "of the world" instead of "in the world". When the close relationship between NARAL and the leadership of the Democrat party is considered, they are indeed trying to make a deal with the devil instead of teaching as Jesus did. Jesus must indeed be weeping at the state of his Church,
-
Posted by: -
Nov. 19, 2009 8:20 PM ET USA
Our government is pro-abortion. How any Bishop could support total government control of health care is beyond me. Even aside from the principle of subsidiarity, when a pro-abortion government run health care it WILL include abortion. If not this year, then next.
-
Posted by: Minnesota Mary -
Nov. 19, 2009 3:14 PM ET USA
Gee, what will the Catholic Bishops do now? They want this socialized medicine bill so badly they can taste it. How can they compromise with evil and make it look good?
