FamilyFoundationBlog.com

Courtesy of our friends at the Family Research Council, below are eight documented facts about the inclusion of abortion funding or mandates in the so-called health care “reform” bill. You can click here, as well, to get them in a PDF document.

Eight Reasons Abortion Is in the Health Care Overhaul

1. The legislation specifically includes it. The President’s bill to amend the Senate bill leaves several abortion provisions in place. In Section 1303 it allows tax credit subsidies for plans that include abortion and leaves the abortion surcharge in place. It maintains the proposal to create a multi-state plan that includes abortion in Sec. 1334. Even worse, it would increase the Senate bill funding from $7 billion to $11 billion for community health centers in Sec. 10503 without any abortion funding restrictions. (H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.)

2. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said it is. “And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women. … That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund.” (HotAir.com: “Sebelius: Everyone will pay into abortion-coverage fund“.)

3. Senate Democrats refused to ban it. Instead of allowing for an up or down vote on a Senate amendment similar to the Stupak Amendment in the House which bans federal funding of abortion, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) “tabled” the amendment, effectively killing it. This was the only amendment dealt with in this way. (Vote No. 369 S.Amdt. 2962 to S.Amdt. 2786 to H.R. 3590.)

4. House Pro-life Democrats, who support a government takeover, say it is. “The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable.” (U.S. Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), February 23, 2010, CBS News) … “I think abortion’s wrong. The problem is that I’ve lived too long. When they say they can keep this money separate, I just don’t believe it.” (U.S. Representative Marion Berry (D-Ark.), March 6, 2010, Arkansas News.)

5. House Pro-abortion Democrats say it is. “The good news is that the Senate bill does allow [abortion coverage],” (Chairwoman of the House pro-abortion caucus, Dianne DeGette (D-Colo.), March 5, 2010, Washington Post.)

6. The Abortion industry has sent out alerts in favor of it. The abortion giant Planned Parenthood sent out alerts on March 6, 2010: “President Obama’s health care reform proposal would make a real difference for the women and families who rely on Planned Parenthood. . . . and [the bill] significantly increase access to reproductive health care.” (Planned Parenthood alert, March 6, 2010.)

7. Candidate Obama said it would be included, and the Obama administration includes it in its definition of reproductive health care. Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated he “believes that reproductive health care is basic health care.” (Rhealitycheck.org questionnaire, 2008.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed up on this in 2009: “Reproductive health care includes access to abortion.” (The Cloakroom Blog: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, April 22, House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing.”)

8. House Democratic Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has indicated he wants to “fix” the abortion coverage problem in the Senate bill. “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that lawmakers could draft separate pieces of legislation with abortion language to earn the support of anti-abortion rights Democrats on healthcare reform legislation.” (March 4, 2010: The Briefing Room, The Hill’s blog.)

But if those eight facts aren’t enough to convince your “pro-life” friends who are convinced that anything out of “the annointed one’s” mouth is truth, or just can’t bring themselves to doubt such “moderate” and “Blue Dog Democrats” such as U.S. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) or our own Mark Warner, here’s 12 more facts and reasons, courtesy of The Cloakroom.

Still not sure? Then check out FRC Action’s resource page: “Standing Against the Government Takeover of Health Care,” as well as why the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the current bill: “Q and A: Government Health Care and Abortion.” Please disseminate this information by using the share program, e-mailing this link to friends and/or posting it to your own social networking sites.

When the General Assembly session closed Sunday, Planned Parenthood ended up one of the session’s biggest winners. Despite efforts in the House of Delegates to deny it from benefiting financially from a “pro-choice” license plate, a conference committee recommended that it should, and the legislation easily passed both chambers Saturday. While license plates usually pass the assembly with few “no” votes, there were several members in each chamber who simply would not vote for a bill that benefited Planned Parenthood. Now this omnibus license plate bill goes to Governor Bob McDonnell for his signature, veto or amendments.

In addition, the General Assembly yesterday sent a state budget to the governor’s desk that does not prohibit taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. It also does not include prohibitions on taxpayer funding of failed embryonic stem cell research and low-income elective abortions. All in all, a good weekend for the nation’s billion-dollar abortion behemoth.

On the license plate, according to media reports, it appears that some in the legislature were intimidated by the ACLU’s threat to sue if Planned Parenthood didn’t get the money from the plate. Courts have ruled that if one viewpoint is allowed on a license plate (i.e., “Choose Life”) than the opposite viewpoint must be allowed (in this case, “Trust Women, Respect Choice”). Courts have not, however, ruled on the issue of funding from the license plates. Nowhere in this session’s legislative process was the message of Planned Parenthood’s plate an issue — except for some members who weren’t going to vote for the plate regardless of the courts! Instead, it always, as ever with Planned Parenthood, was about the money.

Unfortunately, once the Planned Parenthood plate was attached to legislation that included several other license plates, it was going to pass. Planned Parenthood and its cronies in the legislature were willing to allow every other license plate (including one that would fund a program that helps feed children) to be defeated in order to get their way. If pro-life legislators had held out, you can imagine the headlines: Anti-abortion legislators kill funding for children.

On the other hand, the General Assembly passed its FY 2011-2012 state budget. Considering the weeping and gnashing of teeth we’ve heard for the past several months over the growing “budget deficit,” it was amazing that the legislature finished its work just one day late. According to media reports, the two-year $70 billion budget takes the state back to 2006 spending levels. While we are pleased that the budget does not include any direct tax increases on Virginia’s families, we are disappointed that simple language protecting the taxpayer from funding unethical activities was not included.

Once again, Senate Democrats such as Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield) and Janet Howell (D-32, Reston) were willing to put the entire commonwealth at risk by blocking a budget that included those protections. Just waiting for it to happen were headline writers and editorial page editors who would have ripped those legislators willing to stand on a pro-life principle.

But the battle isn’t over. These bills now await action by the governor. Over the next several days we will put together a comprehensive action plan for how you can make sure that your voice is heard — and heard loudly — during the veto process concerning the continued taxpayer funding of unethical activities by your state government.

This Thursday the Senate Education and Health Committee will vote on several pro-life bills that are priorities of The Family Foundation. Please contact the members of the Ed and Health committee (see here) and urge them to pass the following bills:

HB 334 (Delegate Bob Marshall, R-13, Manassas): This bill would require that our Informed Consent law be updated to include information that has been published in a peer reviewed medical journal about the consequences of abortion on future pregnancies. Ironically, Planned Parenthood, which has accused pregnancy resource centers of disseminating information that is not “medically accurate,” is opposed to this bill that requires the information given to women at Virginia’s unregulated abortion centers to be exactly that —  medically accurate.

HB 393 (Delegate Matt Lohr, R-26, Harrisonburg): This legislation would require Virginia’s unregulated abortion centers to have on site life saving equipment, as well as require licensing and regular inspection. Currently, Virginia’s abortion centers are unregulated and uninspected.

HB 1042 (Delegate Kathy Byron, R-22, Lynchburg): This bill would require that unregulated abortion centers perform an ultrasound to better determine the gestational age of the unborn child prior to an abortion, and offer the woman seeking the abortion the opportunity to view the ultrasound. It would bring Virginia’s Informed Consent law in line with modern medical technology.

If you are familiar at all with the Virginia General Assembly then you are aware just how antagonistic the majority of the Ed and Health committee usually is toward even the most reasonable pro-life legislation. On an annual basis, we see pro-life bills die on what we have begun to call “Black Thursday” — the last Thursday of committee hearings each session.

Why, bother contacting these legislators who seem so clearly opposed to protecting the unborn? There are several reasons:

First, past votes are not always indications of future action. Legislators change their minds. You may recall Senator Creigh Deeds (D-25, Bath), while running for governor, talking about “growing” as a legislator (he was referring to his flip-flop on the Marriage Amendment). We have worked with legislators who have become more and more pro-life over their time in the legislature, often through the education process associated with debate over these bills.

Which leads to a second reason, education. These bills offer us the opportunity to educate both legislators and the public on these important issues. They give you the opportunity to discuss controversial issues with friends and neighbors by talking about reasonable measures often supported by large majorities. Each time we present these bills to a committee we are able to reach more people with the message of the importance of protecting both the unborn and women who face a crisis pregnancy. You never know when a legislator is going to hear an argument that is going to change their opinion of a certain piece of legislation.

Finally, these votes expose where legislators currently are on reasonable abortion measures. Several members of the Ed and Health committee are in districts that have a pro-life  constituency. These senators mask as “moderate,” but their voting records on these bills have exposed their real positions. Next year, when these senators are up for re-election, the voters in their districts will know exactly where they stand on these issues because they will have a four-year voting record to look at. Voters will then be able to hold them accountable for their votes.

So, please do your part. Contact the members of the Ed and Health committee and urge them to support HB 334, HB 393 and HB 1042.

Earlier this session we celebrated one of our most significant victories — defeating draconian regulations of our Commonwealth’s pregnancy resource centers. The effort to frighten women in crisis away from these important ministries was led by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia and Planned Parenthood.

In yesterday’s Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, I was given the opportunity to present the case for PRCs in an opinion piece (click here).

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia was given the opportunity to make its case against PRCs here. I urge you to read both opinion pieces.

Once again, I also ask you to support the pregnancy resource center in your community. As you will read in my op-ed, they make an incredible contribution to our communities by helping women in crisis realize they have a real choice other than abortion when faced with a crisis pregnancy. I hope you will join the PRC in your community today.

In some bright news amidst the regular drumbeat of negative national and state reports, Virginia earned a coveted grade from NARAL Pro-Choice America last week — an “F” in protecting abortion on demand!

My message to them: You ain’t seen nothing yet!

However, just a quick glance at NARAL’s criteria for Virginia’s stellar grade conveys just how out of the mainstream NARAL actually is when it comes to abortion. For example, one strike against us is that we “ban a safe abortion procedure.” That procedure is the brutal act of partial birth infanticide!

Another strike? We require “biased-counseling requirements and mandatory delays” prior to abortion. That would be the vastly popular and reasonable Informed Consent law. The bias-counseling? A pamphlet that describes the gestational development of an unborn child!

It gets better. Virginia also “restricts young women’s access to abortion services by mandating parental consent.” Imagine that, requiring a parent be involved in a medical procedure when a teenager is the patient!

They also claim that Virginia law “subjects abortion providers to burdensome restrictions.” What would that be? We don’t allow women to be subjected to second and third trimester abortions inside unregulated and uninspected abortion centers, but instead require that they be done in hospitals.

All that before we even get to the lies. In one place they claim Virginia restricts low income women’s access to abortion when, in fact, Virginia is one of only 17 states that goes beyond federal requirements and pays for low income abortions that are “elective.”

While we can all be somewhat proud of this failing grade, to me, we have a long way to go to restore a respect for human life in Virginia. That will happen when we finally require Virginia’s abortion centers to be regulated and inspected; when we no longer force taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood and low income abortions; when we bring our Informed Consent laws into the 21st century by requiring an ultrasound prior to an abortion.

So, although we don’t think we truly deserve an “F,” we hope you celebrate it for a moment. Then, let’s all get back to work to truly earn that grade next year.

As part of our Virtual Lobby Day, we want to bring you as much flavor of the General Assembly as we can to those who can’t make it to Richmond as often as they’d like. In fact, we continue to post videos of committee hearings on bills we support on our YouTube Channel as well as here, making this blog perhaps the best place for information about what your state government is doing. Tomorrow, and throughout session, we’ll have more about what we’re doing through the Internet and how you can help influence lawmakers.

On January 18, Delegate Kathy Byron (R-22, Lynchburg), a former Family Foundation Legislator of the Year, spoke to pro-family activists at our Family Foundation Day at the Capitol. She focused on two pro-life bills she is carrying this session: HB 1033 (defining a baby as separate from the mother’s body) and HB 1042 (requiring an ultrasound before an abortion). Both bills are still alive. Click on them to get more information and learn where you need to direct your e-mails.

Delegate Kathy Byron speaks on behalf of the unborn — and the born in patroning the “baby bill” this session.

Today, NARAL ProChoice Virginia Foundation held a press conference to announce legislation  that seeks to remove the funding stream available to pregnancy resource centers from the purchase of “Choose Life” license plates. The bills are SB 188, patroned by Senator Ralph Northam (D-6, Norfolk) and HB 452, patroned by Delegate Charniele Herring(D-46, Alexandria). These harmful bills seek to require new state regulations on all PRCs, including the following stipulations:

» Placement of a sign on the outside of the center stating, “that it does not perform or refer women for abortions, that it does not provide or refer women for contraception, and that the facility is not required to maintain medical confidentiality or medical records in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).”

» Collection by the state of all materials distributed at the center.

» Signature by a center’s board member stating that they comply with “all aspects of Heartbeat International, Inc.’s ‘Commitment of Care’ and that the center provides only factually and medically accurate information about pregnancy, contraception, and abortion to a person seeking counseling, information, or assistance from the center.”

» Violation of these accuracy policies by any employee or even a volunteer is subject to a civil penalty.

In announcing the legislation, NARAL released a year-long study “revealing the misinformation and deception” of these centers. Among the study’s claims:

» PRCs rely on deceptive advertising. The example given is of “highly visible” billboards on “well traveled roads” with text such as, “Pregnant? Scared? Need Help? Call us!” Apparently these signs “incite a potential client to call” because they misconstrue it to be a so-called “comprehensive reproductive health care clinic.” In case you are wondering, this deceptive advertising of centers can also be found in the yellow pages when you find these centers under “Abortion Alternatives.”

» Evasive Phone Conversations: The report claims that “If a young woman facing an unintended pregnancy did not know to ask, she would not be told the limits of the crisis pregnancy center’s services.”

» Appearance as Medical Clinics: According to the report, “The center looked like a small doctor’s office. There was a waiting room . . . an office with a glass check-in window. In the bathroom, there was a place to put my urine sample in the wall like at my doctor’s office. … The ultrasound room looked like a room at my gynecologist’s office.”

» Lacks Confidentiality: PRCs are not required by law to abide by federal standards of confidentiality (HIPAA) but, in fact, they do so voluntarily. This report calls out the fact that some centers provide literature that plainly states that if you are a minor, “the center may give certain information to parents or guardians.” Imagine that! Including parents in the decision. I thought that was actually the law of Virginia!

» Medically Inaccurate Information: During today’s press conference, Senator Northam (a medical doctor) highlighted the fact that centers were found to mention a link between abortion and breast cancer that does not exist. This is an area of serious medical debate. Just last year a study was published in a prestigious, peer reviewed medical journal containing an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues that in fact abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40 percent. Dr. Northam is not apparently keeping up with the medical literature.

»The study also states that, “CPCs use the ploy of a medical ultrasound to show a woman a fetus and execute an emotional appeal, despite it being an unnecessary medical procedure.”

As I told the media today in response to NARAL’s fallacious claims, Virginia’s lucrative abortion industry is watching women make a different choice than they want them to make and it’s eating into their profits. This new legislation is nothing more than an attempt to scare women from making a choice different than abortion. PRCs have assisted thousands of women in Virginia through crisis pregnancies and not a single woman has ever died. Virginia’s abortion centers cannot say the same.

The Family Foundation will be the guardian of these centers, which faithfully try to serve women in need. But we need your help. In a few short days, I will provide another update on this legislation as it moves into committee. But we need you to contact your legislators and tell them about the wonderful work PRCs do.

We also need you to do something else. Please show your support of these pregnancy resource centers as they face an unwarranted battle in the political arena. Please consider doing one of the following two things: Purchase a Choose Life Plate, $15 of which will fund these centers or call the PRC near you and thank them for their service. If you are able, consider financially supporting them. You can imagine, due to the high costs of operating The Family Foundation, I rarely make appeals on behalf of other organizations, but the work they do is tireless. While the political battle is critical, the front lines cannot be under-resourced.

Finally, if you have been helped by a PRC or you know of someone who benefited from their work, would you consider joining The Family Foundation in defeating this legislation? Would you testify or at least meet with a legislator? If so, please contact our office immediately at 804-343-0010.

This is the second in a series of five policy statements on issues that will come before the 2010 General Assembly. The first, regarding parental rights, can be found here. Each statement covers one of The Family Foundation’s five areas of principle. The others will follow over the rest of the week.

Just a few days before Christmas, Virginians learned of an appalling story from Campbell County in which a mother allegedly suffocated her infant to death when it was only moments old. Worse, no charges were filed against the mother. Why has this murder essentially been condoned by the authorities? Because the child was umbillically attached when murdered.

Virginia law is unclear about whether a born child who remains umbilically attached is a “separate and independent life” and, therefore, accorded basic human rights — such as life! The legal standard was set in Lane v. Commonwealth, where the Virginia Supreme Court held that in order to bring charges against someone who killed a newborn, it must be proven that:

» The child is born alive,

» Has an independent and separate existence from the mother, and 

» The accused is the criminal agent that caused the death.

Incredibly, the court saw a distinction between a child “born alive” and one having an “independent and separate existence” from the mother. Abortion advocates are so desperate to protect their “right” to abortion that they blur the lines of homicide as well — the law has been crafted in such a way as to allow for a class of cases in which the criminal code no longer is applied.

For those of us who are pro-life, murder and abortion are synonymous. However, to our opponents, the start of life is ambiguous and even the “I know it when I see it” pornography standard isn’t concrete enough to be applied to life. They are always moving the target, always excusing, always apologizing. But no matter what anyone believes about abortion, there is no reasonable argument for the murder of a newly born infant.

Virginia has a partial birth infanticide law and we are investigating whether that law could be applied here. But the action alleged in the Campbell County case is so heinous that is needs to be addressed in our criminal code as well.

Over a year ago state Senator Robert Hurt (R-19, Chatham) began investigating how to make Virginia’s law stronger in this area. He urged the Virginia Crime Commission to study the issue and propose legislative changes, but the commission only did so after being forced to by Senator Hurt and Delegate Rob Bell (R-58, Charlottesville). We have contacted the Alliance Defense Fund and they are reviewing possible legislative remedies for this situation.

Several years ago, a similarly disturbing incident took place in which a pregnant woman shot herself in the stomach on her due date and was not prosecuted for anything more than unlawful discharge of a firearm. She paid a small fine and nothing was added to her record. The Family Foundation took the legislative initiative to address this issue, but the bill was defeated in the Senate Education and Health committee.

This year, The Family Foundation is supporting an Infant Born Alive Act (HB 1033), patroned by Delegate Kathy Byron (R-22, Lynchburg), in the General Assembly in response to the Campbell County incident. Legislators will get yet another opportunity to fix the loophole in the law and protect Virginia’s infant children. Let’s pray that they recognize life when they see it and support life-protecting legislation.

During the recent statewide campaign, we and our sister organization, TFF Action, ran an unprecedented — and massively successful — voter education campaign, Winning Matters. Although we anticipated a wind down after the election in November, Winning Matters remains in high gear for the crucial special election for the 37th district Virginia Senate seat (in Fairfax, January 12) vacated by Republican Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli.

Winning Matters retained a staff of three (two field reps in Fairfax and a project manager) which has produced, and is distributing, thousands of paper and online voter guides in English, Spanish and Korean to churches, civic groups and area businesses. It also is providing absentee ballot applications for people not be able to vote in person on the 12th. Winning Matters also is working with churches to announce the election and/or put it in their bulletins as a reminder to their members to go out and vote.

If you are interested in helping Winning Matters with this crucial special election, between Republican Stephen Hunt and Democrat Dave Marsden, especially within your church, please contact Roger Pogge at 804-343-0010 or e-mail him at roger@familyfoundation.org. 

Although the campaign is a short one, it has been hot for a while, probably because it is so crucial to the makeup of the Virginia Senate, which the Democrats currently control by one seat. Among the issues: Marsden now claims to be for lower taxes, despite his history of votes to raise them; the fact that he moved into a friend’s house to be eligible to run for the seat; and, of course, it wouldn’t be a campaign in Virginia if life and abortion weren’t part of the (misleading) discussion. If Hunt wins for the GOP, it will remain within striking distance of winning crucial votes, with Lt. Governor Bill Bolling breaking ties. If Marsden pulls it out for the Dems, the left will have a little leeway with a second vote to spare. One seat might not sound like much, but whoever wins the election can change the dynamics of the entire Virginia Senate. Which is why winning matters.

Hear it, see it for yourself, here, from NBC12 in Richmond, WSLS-TV in Roanoke and YouTube:

A detective explains why the mother cannot be charged . . . with anything!  He even cites the Virginia Senate’s refusal to pass bills to prevent this because it’s “too close to the abortion issue.”