Recently, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur's spokesperson, Steve Fought, made highly controversial statements attacking pro-life groups for opposing Congresswoman Kaptur and the new health care law (see http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38519 ).
Kaptur's office contends that an executive order signed by President Obama eliminates any pro-life concerns with the new law. Mr. Fought said, "Their political agenda, anti-Obama, is stronger than their belief in consistency when it comes to pro-life issues."
"Some people you're never going to satisfy. Some people, it's never enough. And those folks fall into that category," Mr. Fought said. "If you're talking about the organizations themselves, they were opposed to it. But, if you talk about the individuals, it depends on the individual.... Sometimes organizations don't represent the interest of their membership necessarily, and I think that's the case here with the executive order."
There is so much wrong about these comments that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Congresswoman Kaptur's office conveniently forgets that that when the U.S. House passed a version of the Health Care bill in November of 2009 with specific language to prevent taxpayer funded abortions, Right to Life took a neutral position.
It was only after the U.S. Senate stripped out the House's pro-life amendment that Right to Life opposed it. Thus, as to Mr. Fought's contention that "you're never going to satisfy" pro-life groups and that "it's never enough", clearly the original House pro-life amendment was "enough" to satisfy Right to Life's concerns about the bill's effect on abortion.
As for Mr. Fought's statement that "there's nothing in the bill that promotes abortion", the Senate added provisions that specifically authorize insurance companies to cover elective abortions in plans supported by federal subsidies.
The Obama executive order does not (and could not) override this provision. Rather, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to comply with it.
As far as Mr. Fought's assertion that pro-life groups were not representing the views of it members, not only do members of pro-life groups oppose government promotion of abortion, but so do the great majority of Ohioans.
In a January 2010 poll conducted for Ohio Right to Life, 1001 registered Ohio voters were asked: "Do you think that health insurance that is paid for or subsidized by taxpayer money should include coverage for abortions, or should abortions be excluded from coverage in such situations?" 65% of Ohio voters said abortion should not be covered, while only 22.1% said that it should be covered.
Thus, when Congresswoman Kaptur turned a deaf ear to the requests of pro-life groups, she was ignoring not only those groups, but also the wishes of the majority of Ohioans.
In a letter to constituents, Congressman John Boccieri states that the new federal health care law (which he voted for) "prohibits insurance companies from paying for abortions if they receive tax credits or federal dollars." He also states that the health care law "requires individuals who require an abortion outside of the cases provided by the Hyde amendment to pay for it themselves." To read a copy of the letter, CLICK HERE.
Mr. Boccieri, please CHECK YOUR "FACTS."
In fact, the health care law specifically authorizes insurance companies to pay for elective abortions in plans supported by federal subsidies. Although the law requires an accounting gimmick in which covered individuals are required to send separate premiums which are used to pay abortionists, this gimmick overlooks the basic nature of these federal subsidies.
Boccieri also says the health care law "requires (that) health center funding adhere to the Hyde restrictions." In fact, the health care law makes an appropriation of BILLIONS of dollars for Community Health Centers (CHCs) which is not subject to the Hyde Amendment restriction on funding elective abortions.
Although the President proclaims to extend the Hyde amendment to this new funding, an executive order cannot trump Federal Law, only action by Congress can.
Not only is Boccieri's explanation of the health care law's provisions on abortion MISLEADING, but the law itself has a provision that deters the flow of accurate information about abortion coverage. That provision prohibits insurance companies from advertising which plans cover elective abortions and require separate payments to pay abortionists.
Imagine - an Act of Congress that not only promotes insurance coverage for elective abortion but has the gall to try to keep people in the dark about it.
Thanks to Congressman Boccieri and the others who voted for the federal health care bill, you don't need to imagine it anymore - it really exists.
Mr. Boccieri, you are just plain wrong!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Mike Gonidakis
DATE: Wednesday July 7, 2010 PHONE: (614) 547-0099 ext. 301
Pro-Abortion Group Backs Brooks
(Columbus, Ohio) – Today, the Ohio Right to Life Society called upon on Franklin County Commissioner Paula Brooks, who was recently endorsed by EMILY’s List, to address two specific questions relating to her alleged fiscal prudence.
A recent General Accounting Office report indicated that six abortion-providing or promoting organizations received more than $1 billion in federal funding between FY 2002-2009. By far the most funding, $657.1 million, went to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates, who performed 305,310 abortions in 2007.
Planned Parenthood is far better at feeding from the public trough than convincing individuals to donate to their cause. In FY 2008, Planned Parenthood affiliates received 88% more from government grants and contracts ($349.6 million) than contributions and bequests ($186 million).
An October 14, 2009 Columbus Dispatch article indicated that Brooks voted to “squeeze” $50,000 out of the county budget for a grant to Planned Parenthood to teach sex education to Columbus kids. Brooks, at the time of the vote, indicated that Planned Parenthood had been a regular recipient of grants from the county.
Brooks’ campaign website claims that she has “a reputation for strong fiscal prudence.” However, if she thinks “squeezing” money out of a tight county budget to pay an abortion-provider to teach kids about sex is the best use of public funds while folks struggle to make ends meet, what will she do if she has a say about the huge federal budget?
The Ohio Right to Life Society and its members have two simple fiscal questions for Paula Brooks:
1) Do you support using our tax dollars to pay for abortions?
2) Would you support limiting government funding to Planned Parenthood to no more than the amount it can raise in donations from private individuals and groups?
“Why should taxpayers be forced to pay more to an abortion-providing organization than it is able to raise through voluntary tax-deductible donations from its supporters,” said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life Society. “This would seem like a modest request, unless the test for public funding is not really support from the public, but the support of some public officials,” said Gonidakis.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Elyse Putnam
DATE: May 27, 2010 PHONE: (614) 547-0099 ext 309
Ohio Senate Passes Bill on Judicial Bypass of Parental Consent for Abortion
(COLUMBUS, OHIO) - On May 27, 2010, the Ohio Senate voted 22 to 11 to pass S.B. 242, a bill to revise the process of judicial bypass under Ohio’s Parental Consent for Abortion statute.
Under federal court rulings, parental consent statutes must permit a minor girl to “bypass” the parental consent requirement by convincing a juvenile judge either: 1) that she is mature and well enough informed to decide whether to have an abortion; or 2) that the abortion is in her best interests.
S. B. 242, which is sponsored by Sen. Tim Grendell (R, Chesterland) and Sen. Karen Gillmor (R, Tiffin), addresses the fact that some judges are giving virtual “rubber-stamp” approval to these judicial bypass requests. In a 2008 Columbus Dispatch article on bypass hearings, one Franklin County judge indicated that she had never denied a bypass request and another judge stated that she had denied only one request. A 2003 Akron Beacon Journal survey found a bypass approval rate of either 86% or 92% (the latter when a county that lumped voluntary dismissals with denials was excluded).
S.B. 242 would require:
• that the girl must prove her case by “clear and convincing evidence”;
• that the judge ask about the girl’s understanding of the possible physical and emotional complications of abortion and what she would do if she experienced such complications; and
• that the judge ask about the extent that the girl has been “prepped” about how to answer questions and what testimony to give at the bypass hearing.
“We are pleased that the Ohio Senate has recognized that abortion can have serious life-changing effects on a young girl,” said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life. “S.B. 242 would require that, before cutting a girl’s parents out of the abortion decision, a judge must make sure that the girl understands the possible negative effects of abortion. It would also require the judge to determine whether the girl’s testimony really reflected her maturity or the ‘coaching’ of others,” Gonidakis said.
The bill now goes to the Ohio House of Representatives. To read a copy of written testimony in support of this bill by Mark Lally, Legislative Counsel, click HERE.
Ohio Senators voting the PRO-LIFE position FOR S.B. 242 were: Steve Buehrer; John Carey; Gary Cates; Kevin Coughlin; Keith Faber; Bob Gibbs; Karen Gillmor; David Goodman; Tim Grendell; Bill Harris; Jim Hughes; Jon Husted; Shannon Jones; Tom Niehaus; Tom Patton; Tim Schaffer; Kirk Schuring; Bill Seitz; Jimmy Stewart; Mark Wagoner; Chris Widener; and Jason Wilson. (22)
Ohio Senators voting the PRO-ABORTION position AGAINST S.B. 242 were: Capri Cafaro; Teresa Fedor; Eric Kearney; Dale Miller; Ray Miller; Sue Morano; Tom Sawyer; Joe Schiavoni; Shirley Smith; Fred Strahorn; and Nina Turner. (11)