& That Means It WOULD Include Abortion

or Another Good Reason to Oppose the Health Care Plan Being Debated in Congress

This is another example of why the term "reproductive health care" should always raise an alarm. It is a code word for expanded &/or funding abortion access.

'It Would Include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood Clinics'

FRC's work in the trenches on taxpayer-funded abortion is starting to have a major impact on the direction of the health care debate. After Senate meetings with several prominent players, FRC was able to take a non-issue and turn into a national focal point. Yesterday, the HELP Committee showed just how much influence our campaign against abortion coverage is having on Republicans and Democrats, as Senators like Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), and Mike Enzi (R-Wy.) used Thursday's HELP meeting to force the leadership's hand on its real agenda.

After weeks of insisting that their plan doesn't include abortion, liberals like Sen. Barbara Mikulski were smoked out of hiding by pro-lifers from both parties. Before our coalition started hammering away at the definition of "reproductive health care," groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL were silent, believing their billions in federal funding were safe. Now their Senate allies are on the defensive, trying to justify abortion as a part of taxpayer-funded "health care."

During yesterday's HELP meeting, the leadership moved one step closer to making that goal a reality. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) stammered her way through an explanation of an amendment to the health care bill that would cover abortion. When pressed, she admitted that her language would force health insurance companies to contract with abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

HATCH: "...Would this include abortion providers? I mean, it looks to me like you're expanding it to... for instance, Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?"

MIKULSKI: "It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman's health clinic, it would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics. It would, um, it does not expand in any way expand a service. In other words, it does not expand, um, uh, or mandate abortion service."

HATCH: "No, but it would provide for them."

MIKULSKI: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate."

HATCH: "Well, I would have a rough time supporting it on that basis. I just wanted to get that clarified. Thank you."Later...

HATCH: "Madam Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in [about] not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support."

MIKULSKI: "...No, I would not, uh, be willing to do that at this time."

Unfortunately, Mikulski's amendment to include abortion coverage in the bill passed by a razor-thin margin (11-12). Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) was the only Democrat to stand his ground and vote for life. If you'd like to help FRC in this battle to ban taxpayer-funded abortion, log on to our new site, www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org, dedicated to promoting the rights to life and conscience. But before you do, click over to www.frc.org to watch the latest "Perkins on Point" video.