The Cathoholic

Kagan Confirmation: Pro-life Concerns

Today, the Senate begins the confirmation hearings for President Obama's second nominee to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School. Last week, Judge Robert Bork, Bill Saunders  of Americans United for Life, and Gerard Bradley, a constitutional law professor from Notre Dame outlined their concerns regarding Kagan's lack of judicial experience, politicized approach to interpreting the law, and admiration for prominent jurors who, in their view, embrace judicial activism. I reviewed their concerns in an article for the National Catholic Register. Kagan, of course, is expected to win. But her critics want  to educate the American public about the relevant issues.  Pro-life advocates and groups that oppose jurors "legislating from the bench," hope to use votes for Kagan as a campaign issue in the fall--politically vulnerable Senators, they argue,will wish they had thought twice before confirming her.

Healthcare Reform: Rep. Stupak & Abortion Funding

Yesterday I listened to an NPR interview with Rep Bart Stupak, the leader of House Democrats opposing abortion funding for health care reform. The NPR interviewer reminded Stupak that both the White House and the Secretary of Health and Human Services insisted that the Senate bill maintained the status quo (ie. no federal funding of abortions). Stupak begged to differ. Then the NPR interviewer asked him if he was prepared to deny health benefits to 30 million uninsured people, just to prevent the funding of abortion. He replied that that some principles were worth fighting for.

It was frustrating to listen to the Stupak interview, as the questions repeated  the Democratic Party leadership's claim that the Senate's health care reform bill doesn't really depart from the Hyde amendment. However, today, perhaps in reaction to Stupak's principled stance, both the New York Times and the Washington Post  published an AP wire service  article on the abortion impasse that actually explained the source of the confusion--or whatever you want to call it.  

For anyone still puzzled by the "he said, she said" back and forth between pro-lifers and Democratic party leaders, here are the relevant passages from the AP article:

"Government policy on taxpayer funding for abortion has been settled for years, following the Hyde amendment.

But the Democratic health care bills altered the balance by creating a new stream of federal money to help working households afford health insurance premiums. Those funds were not subject to the Hyde restrictions.

The House responded by adopting Stupak's amendment, although it was opposed by most Democrats. It says no health insurance plan receiving federal subsidies can pay for abortion, except under the three exceptions already allowed by federal law. Women who want insurance coverage for abortion would have to buy a separate policy.

The Senate bill took a different approach. It says health insurance plans operating in a new consumer marketplace can cover abortion, but it may only be paid for with private premiums. Money from federal subsidies would have to be strictly segregated from any funds used to pay for abortion. Consumers would have to write two checks to their insurance plan, one for the regular premium, the other for abortion coverage.

Leading abortion opponents - including the nation's Catholic bishops - say the Senate language is a fig leaf, opening the way for government subsidies for abortion. They're urging defeat of the health care bill unless it takes Stupak's approach."

For the final word, here's Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life in today's online  Wall Street Journal:

"In November, presidential adviser David Axelrod, on CNN's "State of the Union," also talked around the Hyde Amendment, saying that the president "doesn't believe this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion." But then Mr. Axelrod claimed that "this shouldn't be a debate about abortion" before concluding that there were discussions in Congress about "how to adjust [the abortion language bill] accordingly."

Apparently, his definition of "adjust" means opening up the spigot for the abortion lobby. The president's latest proposal mirrors legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn't include a Hyde Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental health-care service for the following reasons:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.

• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.

• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

The president's plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on "community health centers," which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.

The bottom line is that the president wants to deploy words that sound soothing like "balance" and "adjust." Meanwhile, the courts are rendering precedent with stark words like "mandatory." "