Pro-Life Page

by Sarah Zagorski | LifeNews.com | 9/19/14 2:49 PM

On Thursday, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed an appeal of a trial court’s decision that upheld the state’s alleged misuse of more than $14 million in taxpayer dollars. ADF, former Governor Bill Owen and former Senate candidate Jane Norton, filed the lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains because they violated the state constitution by using state funding to go to their abortion business.

Michael Norton, from ADF’s Senior Counsel said the following about the appeal: “No one is above the law, including Colorado politicians who are violating our state’s constitution by continuing to fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion activities with state taxpayer dollars. The state acknowledges that about $1.4 million of state taxpayer money flowed from state government agencies through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate. The lower court seems to have agreed with that but dismissed the case on a technicality.”

Natalie Decker, ADF legal counsel and co-counsel in the case also said, “We hope the Colorado Court of Appeals reinstates this case for the benefit of the taxpayers and the voters who clearly intended to stop exactly this kind of back-door funding.”

The Colorado Constitution states, “No public funds shall be used by the State of Colorado, its agencies or political subdivisions to pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion.”

Yet between 2009 and 2012 fiscal years, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) received $10 million from the state of Colorado. These funds came from the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Department of Education, Justice Department, and Department of Health and Environment.

As LifeNews previously reported, earlier this year Live Action released a video of Planned Parenthood encouraging young teen females to participate in sado-masochistic sexual activities, including gagging, whipping, asphyxiation, shopping at sex stores, and viewing pornography. Planned Parenthood employees also told these girls that “stop,” really doesn’t always mean, “stop”. This advice benefits Planned Parenthood because when girls participate in sexually risky behavior and get pregnant, they can go to Planned Parenthood for an abortion.

This manipulation shouldn’t be all that surprising since they’ve published multiple “resources” for children and teenagers concerning sexual activity. These materials claim to provide “age appropriate” sex education to children starting at age four. Planned Parenthood justifies starting sex-education at such a young age by stating, “Ideally, medical accurate sexuality education would be taught each year in our schools from pre-kindergarten to 12^th grade.”

Additionally, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast had to pay the state of Texas $4.3 million for fraudulently overbilling the taxpayer funded Medicaid program. And in Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains failed to inquire about or report the suspected sexual abuse of a 13-year-old child by her stepfather. They abortion giant performed the abortion and sent the girl right back to her abuser.

This is why pro-life groups like Colorado Citizens for Life are committed to defunding Planned Parenthood. Citizens who oppose the abortion giant shouldn’t have their tax dollars go to a business that profits off of hurting young girls and teaching children how to have casual sex.

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 9/18/14 11:43 AM

A coalition of pro-life groups and members of Congress gathered today on Capitol Hill to demand a Senate vote on a House bill that would stop the massive taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamaca.

The call for a vote comes on the heels of a new nonpartisan GAO report showing Obamacare is the biggest expansion of abortion funding since Roe v. Wade.

Despite a promise President Obama made to lawmakers and the American public in a special joint session of Congress on healthcare reform that, “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion,” a new report released by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows well over 1,000 health care plans under Obamacare pay for abortions with taxpayer money.

“The American people don’t like being lied to!” Congressman Chris Smith told media gathered for the press conference.

The House of Representatives has passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7), which would apply the traditional Hyde Amendment policy to all federal programs, including the Obamacare premium-subsidy program. But pro-abortion Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to schedule a vote on it.

“Congress should change ObamaCare to provide transparency and remove abortion funding so when individuals buy exchange plans beginning November 15th, they can actually make an informed decision,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council. “There have been many broken promises associated with ObamaCare. This is one broken promise that we cannot let go. The Senate must pass H.R. 7/S. 946 the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act sponsored by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).”

National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson says it is “no surprise” that Obamacare funds abortions and he called on pro-life voters to hold lawmakers accountable in November.

“Those really responsible for this scandal are the lawmakers, such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Mark Udall of Colorado, who voted against the pro-life amendment that would have prevented this massive federal funding of abortion-covering plans, as well as those who voted to enact the bill after the amendment was rejected, such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas,” he said.

The GAO report focused mainly on determining the prevalence of elective abortion coverage in health plans sold on the exchanges, in the 27 states plus D.C. that currently do not have laws in effect that restrict abortion coverage. The GAO found that on these 28 exchanges, 1,036 plans cover elective abortion while 1,062 do not. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that between 2015 and 2024, $726 billion will flow from the federal Treasury in direct subsidies for Obamacare health plans.

The Obamacare law was enacted in early 2010 despite objections from pro-life forces that it contained provisions that would result in massive federal subsidies to help scores of millions of Americans buy health plans that cover elective abortion. However, President Obama repeatedly insisted that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

Johnson said these massive subsidies for abortion-covering plans amount to a sharp break from decades of federal policy under the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment says that no federal funds “shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion,” but the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the Obamacare law. Attempts to include Hyde-like language in the Obamacare law were initially successful in the House but were ultimately blocked by President Obama and his allies in Congress.

According to Johnson, the author of so-called “compromise” language that paved the way for enactment of the law, then-Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), said in 2009 that “you have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. The latter has to be entirely from personal funds.”

He said the Nelson “two check” system, previously given great credence by some journalistic “factcheckers,” turns out to be not merely a flimsy gimmick, but a vanished mirage. Although the GAO confirmed that the law requires “issuers to collect from each enrollee in a QHP [Qualified Health Plan] covering non-excepted [elective] abortion services a separate payment for coverage of these services,” the Obama Administration is not enforcing such a requirement. Not a single one of the 18 insurance companies that are selling abortion-covering plans, and that responded to the GAO, actually were collecting a separate payment from enrollees for elective abortion coverage.

According to National Right to Life, despite assurances that there would be plans available in each state that do not fund elective abortions, the GAO found that in five states – Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont – every insurance plan currently sold on the exchange covers elective abortion. In addition, abortion-covering plans dominated the exchanges in California (96% cover elective abortion, 86 plans out of 90), Massachusetts (98%, 109 plans of 111), New York (95%, 405 plans of 426), and Oregon (90%, 92 plans of 102).

By JENNIFER HABERKORN and BURGESS EVERETT | 9/15/14 11:00 PM EDT Updated: 9/16/14 1:44 PM EDT |Politico|
 

The Affordable Care Act requires that insurers collect separate payments from customers for abortion coverage so that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies do not cover abortions. Adoption of the complex payment scheme — which essentially requires customers to send two separate payments to their insurers — was pivotal to getting the health law through Congress. Anti-abortion Democrats brokered the arrangement shortly before the law passed, threatening to vote against it without the restrictive language.

The report’s release is likely to elicit new election-year attacks on congressional Democrats from anti-abortion groups and Republicans who warned that Obamacare would allow for taxpayer subsidized abortions.

Among a sample of 18 insurers, “all but three issuers indicated that the [abortion coverage] benefit is not subject to any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions,” the GAO wrote in its report.

The vast majority of people who bought coverage on the exchanges did so with subsidies. According to government figures, 87 percent of the 5.4 million people who bought a plan on HealthCare.gov in the last enrollment period did so with at least some subsidy .

There is no data provided on how many plans have paid for abortions so far.

The GAO report found that in Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, all insurance plans offered on the exchanges cover abortions above and beyond the exceptions for rape, incest and the mother’s life. The health law required the Office of Personnel Management to ensure there was at least one insurance policy in each state that did not cover abortion except in the restricted circumstances.

The Obama administration, in a response to a draft copy of the report, defended its actions.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Tuesday that it regularly communicated the technical details of abortion coverage to health insurance companies. The agency said that it would provide additional clarifying information in the coming days.

“CMS will work with stakeholders, including states and issuers, so they fully understand and comply with the federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions,” spokesman Ben Wakana said.

A Health and Human Services Department official confirmed that the law requires issuers to collect separate payments, but said that the law doesn’t specify how that needs to be done.

Critics of the dual payment track have long questioned the structure of the arrangement, saying that it was essentially inoperable. If a plan wants to cover abortion, it has to estimate the cost of coverage — no less than $1 per enrollee, per month — and collect that money from customers in a separate way than via their tax subsidies. Then, the pots of money have to remain separate.

Nationally, 1,062 plans in 28 states only cover abortion in the cases of rape, incest or to preserve the mother’s life, and 1,036 plans cover abortion services in a wider variety of circumstances, the GAO said.

by Stacie Kuhns | LifeNews.com | 9/15/14 6:33 PM

A news story has been making the rounds about a ridiculous elementary school regulation against students’ use of lip balm. A fifth-grader named Grace Karaffa requested some Chapstick while on the playground and was denied.

Eleven year-old Grace started a petition to allow Stuarts Draft Elementary School students to use the product and gained 236 signatures before testifying to the school board.

She explained, “I was told I couldn’t use it. Then later that day, they started to bleed so I asked for Chapstick again and I was told that it was against the school policy for elementary kids to have Chapstick.”

The assistant superintendent of administration for Augusta County Public Schools informed reporters that Chapstick is considered an over-the-counter medication by the school board. In Augusta County Public Schools, Chapstick may only be administered by a school nurse and only if a physician has prescribed its use.

This may seem like a somewhat silly story about bureaucracy gone too far. However, it is outrageous and infuriating when you consider that a child may need a physician’s note to apply Chapstick — but, in 26 states and Washington, D.C., teenagers and pre-teens don’t even need parental permission to obtain an abortion.

An 11 year-old girl has to apply to her school district’s board to be able to use Chapstick on her chapped lips. Yet in some states, if an 11 year old girl wants a life-altering and potentially life-threatening surgical procedure, nobody has to know. In many other states, parents, guardians or even just a sibling or “mental health professional,” need only be informed of this child’s decision.

I’m not a parent, and I’m certainly not a lawmaker, doctor or an abortionist. But I’ve been an 11-year-old before, and I’ve known many in my life. I can say with perfect conviction and scientific backing: grave consequences result when 11 year-olds are allowed to make irreversible decisions which will affect the course of their lives forever. In fact, recent studies reveal their minds aren’t even yet fully formed to understand the long-term implications of their choices.

When the conscience of a nation has turned so absolutely upside-down that something helpful is forbidden, but something absolutely harmful is accepted without a second thought, the only solution is an appeal to the Creator of the human conscience — the One who wrote His law on the hearts of men.

by Steven Ertelt | San Francisco, CA | LifeNews.com | 9/10/14 11:25 AM

San Francisco, California is closer to becoming the most pro-abortion city in the nation. That’s because the city is about to go on record opposing a ban on sex-selection abortions.

Why would banning abortions done simply because the unborn baby is a girl be a problem? City officials opposing the ban make the claim that somehow it is racist.

From the San Francisco Examiner story:

San Francisco would become the first jurisdiction in the country to go on record opposing sex-selective abortion bans if a resolution stating they perpetuate racial stereotypes, being introduced by Supervisor David Chiu today, is adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

Sex-selective abortion bans prohibit terminating a pregnancy on the basis of sex, and doctors who perform such abortions can face fines, jail time or lawsuits. The bans “encourage racial profiling of women by some medical providers,” according to Chiu’s resolution, and can lead to women being denied services.

“Lawmakers across the country have successfully advocated for sex-selective abortion bans by perpetuating false and harmful racial stereotypes that such laws are necessary to stop an influx of Asian immigrants from spreading this practice, and that Asian American communities do not value the lives of women,” states the resolution, which Chiu will announce at City Hall today.

So the excuse for justifying the sexist practice of banning sex-selection? Because Asian cultures tend to be the ones where the sex-selection abortion practice is most prevalent, banning it targets Asian-Americans.

Wesley Smith, a pro-life attorney who lives in California, commented on the logical absurdity.

“One would think that liberals–so opposed to real (and imagined) discrimination–would oppose abortion based on sexism. Nope,” he says. “San Francisco–where else?–could go on record opposingprotecting female (mostly) fetuses from being aborted because they are the wrong gender.”

“I wonder if pro abortion types would oppose banning eugenic gay-selection abortion if a test could detect the sexual orientation of a gestating fetus,” he concludes.