Bring it on, President Biden

Today, Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States of America, and Kamala Harris will be inaugurated as Vice President. Pro-life advocates are bracing for a hostile four years, as abortion industry interests dominate Washington, D.C.

Since the Supreme Court’s brutal and unjust decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been many ups and downs, victories and defeats, and constant shifts in the balance of power. But some things never change.

Human life still begins at fertilization.

All human beings are still worthy of protection from violence.

Abortion is still the violent act of killing a human being.

Abortion is still a matter of life and death, not a mere religious issue or political debate. 

The cause of life still attracts millions of dedicated people of every faith and none, from diverse backgrounds.

Pro-life Americans still have the truth on our side. 

Social and legal change takes time. To put our struggle in context, Roe v. Wade will be 48 years old on Friday; we remember that it took 58 years for the Supreme Court to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson and reject “separate but equal” racism. The pro-life movement is in it for the long haul. 

We will continue to save as many babies as we can, while we strive for the day that the right to life is restored. No matter who is in the White House, no matter who is in Congress, no matter who is on the Supreme Court, no matter who dismisses and mocks us, we aren’t going anywhere

Tomorrow’s Georgia Runoff Elections Have Huge Implications

Which party will control the Senate? That question will be answered by the people of Georgia, who will elect both their Senators in a runoff election. Incumbent Sen. David Purdue (R) faces Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff, while incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) faces Democratic challenger Raphael Warnock. Early voting has concluded, with over 3 million ballots already submitted. Tomorrow is the final opportunity for Georgians to cast their votes.
Control of the Senate could have a tremendous impact on abortion policy, especially when it comes to confirming judges and protecting the 60,000 lives saved each year under the Hyde Amendment. Senators Purdue and Loeffler both have anti-abortion voting records, while Ossoff and Warnock have the backing of the abortion industry. CNN reports that Planned Parenthood has spent six figures in the race; on the pro-life side, the political arms of groups like the Susan B. Anthony List and Students for Life of America are heavily invested. 
Raphael Warnock, who is a pastor, has tried to persuade the state’s religious voters that the Bible is compatible with violence against babies in the womb. Secular Pro-Life is not qualified to opine on matters of Biblical interpretation, and we do not believe that ancient sacred texts should determine today’s laws. Modern scientific and ethical considerations are sufficient to support anti-abortion policy. That said, we would be remiss not to acknowledge that Warnock is an outlier; most Christian leaders support the vulnerable unborn members of their communities, and prominent Black pastors in Georgia have signed an open letter condemning Warnock’s position
Georgia is generally considered a pro-life state—it enacted a heartbeat law and is ranked #14 on Americans United for Life’s 2021 Life List—but that does not make it a sure thing for Republicans, as its support for Joe Biden in November clearly demonstrated. FiveThirtyEight’s polling summary shows both races are incredibly close.
[Photo credit: Alejandro Barba on Unsplash]

Dear Hillary Clinton: late-term abortions are *not* “almost always” medically necessary.

On September 20, 2015, HRC appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and stated:

I think that the kind of late-term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity. And, therefore, I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision. 

FactCheck.org took Clinton to task for this claim [emphasis added]:

A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign told us that she meant that many late-term abortions — not all or even most — are because of medical reasons. But that’s not what she said. Her statement left the impression that the majority, if not all, late-term abortions are medically necessary. The available evidence does not support that assertion.

I doubt Clinton actually did mean to say “many” instead of implying “all” or “most.” The “always medically necessary” talking point regarding late-term abortions is ubiquitous. Today Clinton repeated the claim, this time even more explicitly:

(Click to enlarge)

I can’t really fully blame the average pro-choice person for believing this idea when authoritative figures assert it–and the media repeats their assertions uncritically. Here’s a CNN article from just a week or so ago interviewing OB-GYN Dr. Barbara Levy of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Levy explains that her discussions about “late-term” abortion (a vague term) refer to abortions at 21 weeks or later. She goes on to assert:

Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother.

If Dr. Levy had said something more vague such as “often” or “frequently,” we could argue that she isn’t trying to infer most or all late-term abortions are for medical reasons. But no, she states “typically,” as in these are the representative cases which happen more often than not.

But, as we’ve said many times over, there is zero data to support this idea. The FactCheck.org article (linked above) summarizes as much, and some of the more nuanced (read: honest) pro-choice people involved will readily agree. In a recent NY Times op-ed, the president for the Center of Health, Ethics, and Social Policy, Frances Kissling, states:

But it’s not just that we don’t know; it’s that we have good reasons to believe it’s not true. Guttmacher published a report explaining the common non-medical reasons women seek abortions at 21+ weeks. Arizona data suggest about 80% of their 21+ week abortions aren’t for medical reasons. Pro-choice author Will Saletan outlined quite a bit of additional research suggesting women often get later abortions because they simply didn’t realize they were pregnant earlier or weren’t sure earlier that they wanted an abortion.

Every single time someone tells me that most or all late-term abortions are medically necessary, I ask for a citation. So far there have been zero. Heartbreaking anecdotes, yes. Data that would justify a quantifiable claim? No. Not ever.

But most people will keep believing it because (1) ACOG representatives and powerful politicians keep saying it and (2) it’s what people would really rather believe anyway. The average pro-choice person doesn’t want to face the fact that highly developed fetuses are being killed for non-medical reasons. That reality is just too uncomfortable.

If you do have data showing most 21+ week abortions are for medical necessity, please email us at info@secularprolife.org.

Dear Hillary Clinton: late-term abortions are *not* “almost always” medically necessary.

On September 20, 2015, HRC appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and stated:

I think that the kind of late-term abortions that take place are because of medical necessity. And, therefore, I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision. 

FactCheck.org took Clinton to task for this claim [emphasis added]:

A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign told us that she meant that many late-term abortions — not all or even most — are because of medical reasons. But that’s not what she said. Her statement left the impression that the majority, if not all, late-term abortions are medically necessary. The available evidence does not support that assertion.

I doubt Clinton actually did mean to say “many” instead of implying “all” or “most.” The “always medically necessary” talking point regarding late-term abortions is ubiquitous. Today Clinton repeated the claim, this time even more explicitly:

(Click to enlarge)

I can’t really fully blame the average pro-choice person for believing this idea when authoritative figures assert it–and the media repeats their assertions uncritically. Here’s a CNN article from just a week or so ago interviewing OB-GYN Dr. Barbara Levy of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Levy explains that her discussions about “late-term” abortion (a vague term) refer to abortions at 21 weeks or later. She goes on to assert:

Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother.

If Dr. Levy had said something more vague such as “often” or “frequently,” we could argue that she isn’t trying to infer most or all late-term abortions are for medical reasons. But no, she states “typically,” as in these are the representative cases which happen more often than not.

But, as we’ve said many times over, there is zero data to support this idea. The FactCheck.org article (linked above) summarizes as much, and some of the more nuanced (read: honest) pro-choice people involved will readily agree. In a recent NY Times op-ed, the president for the Center of Health, Ethics, and Social Policy, Frances Kissling, states:

But it’s not just that we don’t know; it’s that we have good reasons to believe it’s not true. Guttmacher published a report explaining the common non-medical reasons women seek abortions at 21+ weeks. Arizona data suggest about 80% of their 21+ week abortions aren’t for medical reasons. Pro-choice author Will Saletan outlined quite a bit of additional research suggesting women often get later abortions because they simply didn’t realize they were pregnant earlier or weren’t sure earlier that they wanted an abortion.

Every single time someone tells me that most or all late-term abortions are medically necessary, I ask for a citation. So far there have been zero. Heartbreaking anecdotes, yes. Data that would justify a quantifiable claim? No. Not ever.

But most people will keep believing it because (1) ACOG representatives and powerful politicians keep saying it and (2) it’s what people would really rather believe anyway. The average pro-choice person doesn’t want to face the fact that highly developed fetuses are being killed for non-medical reasons. That reality is just too uncomfortable.

If you do have data showing most 21+ week abortions are for medical necessity, please email us at info@secularprolife.org.

Three takeaways from Gallup abortion polling

Gallup recently released a series of articles on its latest abortion survey, which goes into much more detail than previous years. There’s far more data than I can realistically cover in a blog post, but here are three things that caught my eye.

Confusion about why women seek abortions: 60% of Americans say that abortion should “generally be legal” in the first trimester. (Second- and third-trimester abortions do not have majority support.) But when asked about specific reasons for having an abortion in the first trimester, a different picture emerges (click to enlarge):

Side note: the questions about first-trimester abortions for fetal disabilities don’t make sense. Down Syndrome and other issues are generally diagnosed later in pregnancy.

Abortion when the woman does not want the child for non-medical reasonsthat is, elective abortionis opposed by a majority of Americans, even in the first trimester! So how is it that 60% believe first trimester should generally be legal, while only 45% support first trimester elective abortion? “Generally legal” means allowing elective abortions! It’s the same question asked two different ways!

Unless… people are under the mistaken impression that most first trimester abortions are not elective. That explains the results. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of abortions—upwards of 75%are sought for socioeconomic reasons, not medical ones. Rape and incest account for less than 1.5% of abortions. Nearly a quarter of women cited “husband or partner wants me to have an abortion” as a reason.

We should emphasize the reasons women abort in our educational efforts. It’s also important to explain that widely supported limits on abortions after the first trimester cannot be put into place until Roe v. Wade and its progeny are overturned.

No Trump effect. I worried publicly that the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, and pro-life organizations’ support for him, would tarnish the movement’s reputation and impair our ability to save lives. At the very least I thought that people with anti-abortion views would become shy, telling pollsters they were pro-choice or undecided in an effort to distance themselves from President Trump.

I’m very glad to have been wrong about this one. While Trump obviously remains a divisive figure, thankfully this hasn’t turned the public away from support for human life. In fact, the pro-life position has gained a couple of percentage points since 2016.

“Personally pro-life” is dead. In addition to asking whether abortion should be legal or illegal in various circumstances, Gallup also asks about the morality of abortion (emphasis added):

By a slim five-percentage-point margin, 48% to 43%, Americans believe abortion is wrong from a moral perspective. In fact, abortion is the moral issue among those tested on which the public is most closely divided.

The 43% who believe abortion to be morally acceptable matches the percentage who say it should be legal in all or most circumstances.

Since Gallup first measured attitudes about the morality of abortion in 2001, an average of 41% have regarded it as acceptable and 49% as wrong. Though attitudes have fluctuated, at no point have more Americans said abortion is morally acceptable than have said it is morally wrong.

Read that sentence again. Everyone surveyed who said abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances also said that abortion is morally acceptable. The bloc saying that abortion is morally unacceptable, but should be legal anywaythe infamous “personally pro-life” compromisehas vanished. And good riddance! It was always a cop-out. Now we can have a real debate about what abortion is and does.

Three takeaways from Gallup abortion polling

Gallup recently released a series of articles on its latest abortion survey, which goes into much more detail than previous years. There’s far more data than I can realistically cover in a blog post, but here are three things that caught my eye.

Confusion about why women seek abortions: 60% of Americans say that abortion should “generally be legal” in the first trimester. (Second- and third-trimester abortions do not have majority support.) But when asked about specific reasons for having an abortion in the first trimester, a different picture emerges (click to enlarge):

Side note: the questions about first-trimester abortions for fetal disabilities don’t make sense. Down Syndrome and other issues are generally diagnosed later in pregnancy.

Abortion when the woman does not want the child for non-medical reasonsthat is, elective abortionis opposed by a majority of Americans, even in the first trimester! So how is it that 60% believe first trimester should generally be legal, while only 45% support first trimester elective abortion? “Generally legal” means allowing elective abortions! It’s the same question asked two different ways!

Unless… people are under the mistaken impression that most first trimester abortions are not elective. That explains the results. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of abortions—upwards of 75%are sought for socioeconomic reasons, not medical ones. Rape and incest account for less than 1.5% of abortions. Nearly a quarter of women cited “husband or partner wants me to have an abortion” as a reason.

We should emphasize the reasons women abort in our educational efforts. It’s also important to explain that widely supported limits on abortions after the first trimester cannot be put into place until Roe v. Wade and its progeny are overturned.

No Trump effect. I worried publicly that the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, and pro-life organizations’ support for him, would tarnish the movement’s reputation and impair our ability to save lives. At the very least I thought that people with anti-abortion views would become shy, telling pollsters they were pro-choice or undecided in an effort to distance themselves from President Trump.

I’m very glad to have been wrong about this one. While Trump obviously remains a divisive figure, thankfully this hasn’t turned the public away from support for human life. In fact, the pro-life position has gained a couple of percentage points since 2016.

“Personally pro-life” is dead. In addition to asking whether abortion should be legal or illegal in various circumstances, Gallup also asks about the morality of abortion (emphasis added):

By a slim five-percentage-point margin, 48% to 43%, Americans believe abortion is wrong from a moral perspective. In fact, abortion is the moral issue among those tested on which the public is most closely divided.

The 43% who believe abortion to be morally acceptable matches the percentage who say it should be legal in all or most circumstances.

Since Gallup first measured attitudes about the morality of abortion in 2001, an average of 41% have regarded it as acceptable and 49% as wrong. Though attitudes have fluctuated, at no point have more Americans said abortion is morally acceptable than have said it is morally wrong.

Read that sentence again. Everyone surveyed who said abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances also said that abortion is morally acceptable. The bloc saying that abortion is morally unacceptable, but should be legal anywaythe infamous “personally pro-life” compromisehas vanished. And good riddance! It was always a cop-out. Now we can have a real debate about what abortion is and does.

PP and SFLA announce big plans for battleground states

Planned Parenthood will spend at least $20 million in 2018 battleground states, the abortion chain disclosed last Thursday. The funds will focus on Senate and gubernatorial races in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They are also spending money to defeat the few remaining pro-life Democrats, like Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, in the primaries. 

Planned Parenthood spokespeople told reporters that focusing on “reproductive health issues” (by which they of course mean the dismemberment of unborn children) is a winning strategy, even claiming that abortion messaging moved voters to support Ralph Northam in the most recent race for governor of Virginia. Historically, however, pro-life candidates have enjoyed a default advantage over their pro-choice counterparts, because pro-lifers are more likely to be single-issue voters.

Pro-life groups are organizing to beat back Planned Parenthood’s well-funded propaganda. Students for Life of America recently announced a tour through West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kentucky, focused on ending taxpayer subsidies of Planned Parenthood. From the press release:

Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins observed that defunding the nation’s largest abortion vendor to redirect scarce resources to real medical centers “is priority number one for students in the more than 1,200 chapters working with us nationwide. This tour is even more significant in light of Planned Parenthood’s announced effort to spend $20 million dollars in an attempt to keep politicians in office who will force taxpayers to continue to give the abortion Goliath more than half-a-billion dollars annually,” said SFLA’s Kristan Hawkins. We don’t need Planned Parenthood, but with fewer women choosing them all the time, they sure need our money.”

SFLA doesn’t have $20 million to throw around, but the pro-life movement has the truth, compassion, and the courage that comes with knowing we are on the right side of history. I’ll take that over blood money any day.

PP and SFLA announce big plans for battleground states

Planned Parenthood will spend at least $20 million in 2018 battleground states, the abortion chain disclosed last Thursday. The funds will focus on Senate and gubernatorial races in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They are also spending money to defeat the few remaining pro-life Democrats, like Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, in the primaries. 

Planned Parenthood spokespeople told reporters that focusing on “reproductive health issues” (by which they of course mean the dismemberment of unborn children) is a winning strategy, even claiming that abortion messaging moved voters to support Ralph Northam in the most recent race for governor of Virginia. Historically, however, pro-life candidates have enjoyed a default advantage over their pro-choice counterparts, because pro-lifers are more likely to be single-issue voters.

Pro-life groups are organizing to beat back Planned Parenthood’s well-funded propaganda. Students for Life of America recently announced a tour through West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kentucky, focused on ending taxpayer subsidies of Planned Parenthood. From the press release:

Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins observed that defunding the nation’s largest abortion vendor to redirect scarce resources to real medical centers “is priority number one for students in the more than 1,200 chapters working with us nationwide. This tour is even more significant in light of Planned Parenthood’s announced effort to spend $20 million dollars in an attempt to keep politicians in office who will force taxpayers to continue to give the abortion Goliath more than half-a-billion dollars annually,” said SFLA’s Kristan Hawkins. We don’t need Planned Parenthood, but with fewer women choosing them all the time, they sure need our money.”

SFLA doesn’t have $20 million to throw around, but the pro-life movement has the truth, compassion, and the courage that comes with knowing we are on the right side of history. I’ll take that over blood money any day.

The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Senate health care bill

[Today’s guest post by Sarah Terzo is part of our paid blogging program. Sarah is a pro-life atheist, a frequent contributor to Live Action News, a board member of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and the force behind ClinicQuotes.com.]

For a long time, the pro-life movement has been calling for the defunding of
Planned Parenthood. This is a worthy aim. Planned Parenthood is the largest
provider of abortions in the United States. They have been caught lying to women about fetal development and offering to protect sex traffickers at the expense of their underage
victims. An undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood in six
different states showed Planned Parenthood workers agreeing to cover up
statutory rape and send underage victims back to their abusers.  And that
doesn’t even touch upon the lengthy investigation into Planned Parenthood’s
selling of fetal organs and body parts.

But in the long-term battle to protect the lives of preborn babies and
vulnerable disabled children and adults, care must be taken not to make one
step forward and ten steps back.

The health care bill currently being considered in the Senate, the Better
Care Reconciliation Act, does defund Planned Parenthood for one year. But other
aspects of the bill, as it stands now, can have a terrible impact on the issues
of abortion and euthanasia.

One part of the Affordable Healthcare Act that the new bill would repeal is
the mandate that insurance plans cover birth and maternity care. According to
CNN, the average cost of childbirth is $30,000. A cesarean section
raises the bill to $50,000.

The changes in the law will mean that at least 22 million fewer people will have health insurance coverage,
including maternity coverage. Millions more, who will keep their coverage in
other areas, will lose maternity coverage as well.

According to statistics gathered by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (which supports abortion), 73% of women who have abortions say that they aborted
because they could not afford a child. Pro-lifers have often said that if a
woman cannot afford to raise a child, she can place the baby for adoption. But as we
have seen, birth without insurance is very costly. Poor women, including many
single mothers, may be faced with a “choice” between spending $30,000 on a
birth (if everything goes right) or $400 on an abortion. If the adoptive parents are unable to cover that cost, the pressure this would
bring to bear on women would be enormous. There is no doubt that more women
would be pressured to “choose” abortion.


Pro-lifers have also spoken out, and rightly so, against euthanasia. Those
most vulnerable to euthanasia are the disabled and the elderly.

Over 6.2 million disabled people rely on Medicaid to provide
health care. The Better Care Reconciliation Act, as currently drafted, will cut Medicaid by billions of dollars. This will force state insurance
to cover fewer services. There have been multiple examples of insurance companies refusing to cover chemotherapy for
cancer patients, but offering to cover pills for assisted suicide. With so much
pressure to cut costs for disabled and chronically ill Americans, this will only
increase.

Currently, many elderly men and women in nursing homes are being paid
for by Medicaid. Medicare only covers skilled nursing care for 100 days. After
that, the only option for a great many elderly people is Medicaid, which pays
for long-term stays in nursing homes. This will be cut. What happens when
elderly people cannot live on their own, have no family to take care of them,
and have no way to pay for nursing home care? Such individuals would be at very
great risk for both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.

And, as I’ve said, 22 million fewer people will have health insurance if the Better Care Reconciliation Act is passed.

I would like to share this story from a friend on facebook:

My sister … died on March 23, 2008 following a brainstem stroke, locked-in
syndrome, and no hospital or rehab facility wanting to touch her because she
was uninsured (she had a new job and was 30 days away from qualifying for
benefits). Her medical costs for 1 week, post-stroke, were 1.2 million dollars
so the doctors said sorry, butbecause she is 100 percent physically paralyzed,
yet 100 percent mentally alert and able to communicate by blinking her eyeswe
must videotape her blinking in agreement to our request to terminate life
support since she lacks coverage for alternative treatment. And to be sure,
they said, we’ll videotape her doing this 3 times over as many days just to
cover our butts. The life support was terminated on Good Friday but unlike
Lifetime movie depictions, death did not come swiftly or without pain. Patricia
Ann Brown Medley, age 43, lingered until 11:07 p.m. on Easter Sunday, at which
time her soul left the earth where a handful of fellow inhabitants decided she
wasn’t worth saving. Sleep well tonight if you find this acceptable.

Did Ann Brown Medley have a right to life?

Incidents like this will become more and more common if the health care bill
is passed without serious revision.

Adding to the number of suicides (assisted or not) will be some of the
millions of mentally ill people who will be taken off their medication. The
Senate health care bill has a clause that allows Medicaid in individual states to
stop covering mental health care in 2019. Ironically, the most mentally ill
people in the country are on Medicaid. Medicaid is given to those who receive
SSI disability benefitspeople who have been so disabled they have never held
a job. Four million people have been scrutinized by the government and declared
so seriously mentally ill that they cannot work (and have never worked). All
four million would potentially lose all access to the medication that keeps
them stable. This includes over two million people with paranoid schizophrenia.
The havoc this would wreak on society (and in individual lives) would be
staggering .

Planned Parenthood should be defunded. Pro-lifers must insist on this. But
the defunding of Planned Parenthood must not be wedded to other policies that
will cause abortion and assisted suicide rates to skyrocket. If you call your
senators, tell them to defund Planned Parenthoodand to stop the terrible
health care cuts that will bring suffering and death to innumerable people.

The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Senate health care bill

[Today’s guest post by Sarah Terzo is part of our paid blogging program. Sarah is a pro-life atheist, a frequent contributor to Live Action News, a board member of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and the force behind ClinicQuotes.com.]

For a long time, the pro-life movement has been calling for the defunding of
Planned Parenthood. This is a worthy aim. Planned Parenthood is the largest
provider of abortions in the United States. They have been caught lying to women about fetal development and offering to protect sex traffickers at the expense of their underage
victims. An undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood in six
different states showed Planned Parenthood workers agreeing to cover up
statutory rape and send underage victims back to their abusers.  And that
doesn’t even touch upon the lengthy investigation into Planned Parenthood’s
selling of fetal organs and body parts.

But in the long-term battle to protect the lives of preborn babies and
vulnerable disabled children and adults, care must be taken not to make one
step forward and ten steps back.

The health care bill currently being considered in the Senate, the Better
Care Reconciliation Act, does defund Planned Parenthood for one year. But other
aspects of the bill, as it stands now, can have a terrible impact on the issues
of abortion and euthanasia.

One part of the Affordable Healthcare Act that the new bill would repeal is
the mandate that insurance plans cover birth and maternity care. According to
CNN, the average cost of childbirth is $30,000. A cesarean section
raises the bill to $50,000.

The changes in the law will mean that at least 22 million fewer people will have health insurance coverage,
including maternity coverage. Millions more, who will keep their coverage in
other areas, will lose maternity coverage as well.

According to statistics gathered by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (which supports abortion), 73% of women who have abortions say that they aborted
because they could not afford a child. Pro-lifers have often said that if a
woman cannot afford to raise a child, she can place the baby for adoption. But as we
have seen, birth without insurance is very costly. Poor women, including many
single mothers, may be faced with a “choice” between spending $30,000 on a
birth (if everything goes right) or $400 on an abortion. If the adoptive parents are unable to cover that cost, the pressure this would
bring to bear on women would be enormous. There is no doubt that more women
would be pressured to “choose” abortion.


Pro-lifers have also spoken out, and rightly so, against euthanasia. Those
most vulnerable to euthanasia are the disabled and the elderly.

Over 6.2 million disabled people rely on Medicaid to provide
health care. The Better Care Reconciliation Act, as currently drafted, will cut Medicaid by billions of dollars. This will force state insurance
to cover fewer services. There have been multiple examples of insurance companies refusing to cover chemotherapy for
cancer patients, but offering to cover pills for assisted suicide. With so much
pressure to cut costs for disabled and chronically ill Americans, this will only
increase.

Currently, many elderly men and women in nursing homes are being paid
for by Medicaid. Medicare only covers skilled nursing care for 100 days. After
that, the only option for a great many elderly people is Medicaid, which pays
for long-term stays in nursing homes. This will be cut. What happens when
elderly people cannot live on their own, have no family to take care of them,
and have no way to pay for nursing home care? Such individuals would be at very
great risk for both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.

And, as I’ve said, 22 million fewer people will have health insurance if the Better Care Reconciliation Act is passed.

I would like to share this story from a friend on facebook:

My sister … died on March 23, 2008 following a brainstem stroke, locked-in
syndrome, and no hospital or rehab facility wanting to touch her because she
was uninsured (she had a new job and was 30 days away from qualifying for
benefits). Her medical costs for 1 week, post-stroke, were 1.2 million dollars
so the doctors said sorry, butbecause she is 100 percent physically paralyzed,
yet 100 percent mentally alert and able to communicate by blinking her eyeswe
must videotape her blinking in agreement to our request to terminate life
support since she lacks coverage for alternative treatment. And to be sure,
they said, we’ll videotape her doing this 3 times over as many days just to
cover our butts. The life support was terminated on Good Friday but unlike
Lifetime movie depictions, death did not come swiftly or without pain. Patricia
Ann Brown Medley, age 43, lingered until 11:07 p.m. on Easter Sunday, at which
time her soul left the earth where a handful of fellow inhabitants decided she
wasn’t worth saving. Sleep well tonight if you find this acceptable.

Did Ann Brown Medley have a right to life?

Incidents like this will become more and more common if the health care bill
is passed without serious revision.

Adding to the number of suicides (assisted or not) will be some of the
millions of mentally ill people who will be taken off their medication. The
Senate health care bill has a clause that allows Medicaid in individual states to
stop covering mental health care in 2019. Ironically, the most mentally ill
people in the country are on Medicaid. Medicaid is given to those who receive
SSI disability benefitspeople who have been so disabled they have never held
a job. Four million people have been scrutinized by the government and declared
so seriously mentally ill that they cannot work (and have never worked). All
four million would potentially lose all access to the medication that keeps
them stable. This includes over two million people with paranoid schizophrenia.
The havoc this would wreak on society (and in individual lives) would be
staggering .

Planned Parenthood should be defunded. Pro-lifers must insist on this. But
the defunding of Planned Parenthood must not be wedded to other policies that
will cause abortion and assisted suicide rates to skyrocket. If you call your
senators, tell them to defund Planned Parenthoodand to stop the terrible
health care cuts that will bring suffering and death to innumerable people.