World Health Assembly calls for improved palliative care

GENEVA, Switzerland — The World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization (WHO), has approved a resolution calling for the strengthening of palliative care as a component of integrated treatment throughout the life course.

Palliative care seeks to relieve pain and suffering and improve the lives of patients (and their families) who are dealing with life-threatening illnesses. WHO estimates that more than 40 million people around the world need palliative care each year.

"Human beings who are near the end of life should be treated with care and respect, no less than human beings at the beginning of life," stated Scott Fischbach, executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO), from Geneva. "This resolution expresses a welcome commitment to the dignity of terminally ill and other suffering patients."

The resolution was adopted on May 23 at the annual meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva.

The United Nations' Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has noted that "States are under the obligation to respect the right to health by … refraining from denying or limiting equal access for all persons … to preventive, curative and palliative health services."

WHO estimates that 80 percent of the world’s population lacks adequate access to pain-management medications that are crucial for palliative care. The WHO resolution calls for those drugs to be made accessible to all, and for information about palliative care and pain management to be made available and part of educational programs for medical students.

"MCCL Global Outreach continues its call for the international community to respect all human life, at every stage of development—with extra protection and care for those who are most vulnerable," Fischbach concluded.

MCCL GO is a pro-life NGO global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund with one goal: to save as many innocent lives as possible from the destruction of abortion. Learn more at www.mccl-go.org.

Plan to reduce newborn deaths ignores effect of prior abortions

The following news release was issued on May 27, 2014.

GENEVA, Switzerland — The World Health Assembly (WHA) last weekend adopted a plan to improve the health of newborn babies worldwide. "Every newborn: An action plan to end preventable deaths" aims to reduce high rates of neonatal mortality in large parts of the world.

Each year, the action plan explains, an estimated 2.9 million children die within the first month after birth, and 2.6 million babies are stillborn. Neonatal mortality has declined at a slower pace than both under-five mortality and maternal mortality.

"Improving the quality of health care during labor, childbirth and the days following birth will substantially reduce newborn deaths in addition to improving maternal health," commented Scott Fischbach, executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO), from Geneva. "Proven measures that have saved the lives of newborns should be extended to countries and areas suffering from high neonatal mortality."

Prenatal care and nutrition are also crucial to the survival and health of newborns. Malnutrition during pregnancy can prevent healthy growth and lead to low birthweight and fetal growth restriction, increasing the risk of neonatal death and disability.

"It is wise to situate the issue of newborn mortality in the context of a continuum of care, covering healthy reproduction, maternal care, and infant and child care," Fischbach said. A new brochure produced by MCCL GO, released last week at the WHA, highlights the importance of the first 1,000 days in the life of a human being—from conception to the second birthday. This window of time is critical to the health and flourishing of mothers, babies and society as a whole.

MCCL GO participated in the online consultation on a draft version of the "Every newborn" plan. Fischbach noted that while preterm birth is the leading cause of newborn mortality (and second leading cause of under-five deaths), the action plan fails to mention a significant risk factor for premature delivery. A wealth of worldwide research has shown that induced abortion substantially increases the risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies.

"The prevalence of abortion significantly contributes to the problem of neonatal mortality," Fischbach observed. "The plan to end newborn deaths should have taken into consideration all of the known risk factors."

MCCL GO's brochure "1 to 1,000" is available in English, French and Spanish in the Resources section at the MCCL GO website, www.mccl-go.org.

MCCL GO highlights first 1,000 days of life at World Health Assembly

The following news release was issued on May 19, 2014.

GENEVA, Switzerland — The first 1,000 days in the life of a human being—from conception to the second birthday—are crucial to the health and prosperity of both mother and child, according to a new document released this week at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. It was produced by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO), a U.N.-accredited non-governmental organization.

"A wealth of research has demonstrated how important this 1,000-day window of time is," stated Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of MCCL GO. "Mothers and babies need quality health care throughout pregnancy, childbirth and the two years after. This must be prioritized in the post-2015 development agenda."

This week's 67th annual WHA is a gathering of the U.N.'s World Health Organization, including delegations from all member states. This year's meeting will include consideration of an action plan to reduce newborn deaths.

An estimated 2.9 million children died within the first month of life in 2012. Many newborn deaths can be prevented by improving the quality of care during labor, childbirth and the days following birth, including essential newborn care, explains MCCL GO's new document, "1 to 1,000: How to ensure the health and flourishing of women, children, and society."

The brochure notes that prenatal care and nutrition greatly affect the life of a child. Malnutrition during pregnancy can hinder development of a child’s brain and immune system, inhibiting the child’s ability to learn and making her more susceptible to disease.

"Maternal and child health are intimately connected," said Fischbach. "Maternal mortality and morbidity remain a serious problem in large parts of the world. We can save the lives of both pregnant women and their babies by providing the care that they need, including skilled birth attendants, emergency obstetric care, sanitation and clean water."

The brochure also describes the importance of early childhood, when suboptimum breastfeeding leads to an estimated 800,000 deaths each year, and it calls for respect and protection for women during pregnancy and motherhood, when they may be uniquely vulnerable to the threat of violence and abuse.

"The first 1,000 days after conception are so critical in so many ways, not just for women and children, but for society as a whole," Fischbach explained. "Good care throughout this period leads to healthier, better-educated and more-productive adults, increasing economic prosperity."

MCCL GO calls on the WHA to prioritize the 1,000-day continuum of care for mothers and babies. "It is absolutely essential to sustainable development," Fischbach concluded.

MCCL GO's brochure "1 to 1,000" is available in English, French and Spanish in the Resources section at the MCCL GO website, www.mccl-go.org.

MCCL GO is a pro-life NGO global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund with one goal: to save as many innocent lives as possible from the destruction of abortion.

MN Senate approves pro-life health care amendment

The following news release was issued today, May 16.

ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Senate last night approved a pro-life amendment, offered by Sen. LeRoy Stumpf, DFL-Plummer, to the Market Rules bill (H.F. 779).

The Senate approved on a voice vote the insertion of a reference to the chapter of law that created MNsure, the state's new health insurance exchange required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare), to Statute 145.414. The statute prohibits requiring insurance companies to offer coverage for elective abortions in Minnesota. Although this statute has been in place for several years, it is important that it now includes a reference to MNsure to clarify that the new state program does not require insurance companies to offer coverage of abortion.

The House previously adopted the same provision when it adopted the Fritz Amendment to the House version of the bill by a vote of 71-63 on Apr. 22.

"Including this reference in statute is critical to establish once again that insurance companies operating in Minnesota do not have to pay for abortions," said MCCL Legislative Director Andrea Rau. "We applaud Rep. Patti Fritz and Sen. Stumpf, as well as the Senate and House, in protecting women and their unborn babies by adopting this provision."

Health care exchange made pro-life by Minnesota House

The following news release was issued today, March 4.

ST. PAUL — Abortion coverage was removed from the state's health care exchange bill by the Minnesota House of Representatives this afternoon. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) strongly supported the amendment, which passed on a 71-57 vote.

"The health care exchange bill in the House now reflects the will of the Minnesota House of Representatives and the will of the people of Minnesota, the majority of whom oppose abortion and abortion coverage," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau.

H.F. 5, the bill to create a state-run health care exchange, is a result of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. Under the federal law, every state must offer a health care exchange—an online marketplace of insurance plans. States may establish their own exchange or defer to one created and run by the federal government.

Minnesota legislators have until March 31 to turn the bill into law (the Senate has its own bill, S.F. 1); otherwise the federal exchange will be imposed. The Legislature will break March 25 until April 1, so the bill must be passed before then.

The federal law allows states to exclude coverage for abortion in health insurance plans that participate in the exchange.

"Abortion is not health care and it should not be among the procedures covered in the state exchange's insurance plans," Rau added. "MCCL is pleased to see the House recognize that abortion is outside the realm of health care."

The amendment to make the state's health care exchange pro-life, A13-0121, was offered by Rep. Patti Fritz, DFL-Faribault. It was one of many amendments considered in today's House floor debate of the exchange bill.

Obamacare, IPAB, and rationing

During the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney criticized Obamacare for creating an unelected Independent Payment Advisory Board that will effectively ration medical care. Barack Obama denied the rationing charge. Burke Balch of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics explains the facts of the matter:

"A rose by any other name," Shakespeare wrote, "would smell just as sweet." Unfortunately, the same is true when the fragrance is less pleasant.

When the role of Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Board in rationing life-saving medical treatments is alleged, the law's apologists indignantly point out that the law specifically precludes the board from "rationing." They seem convinced this demonstrates that the charges of "rationing" are unarguably false. But are they right?

Let's review the facts. The law directs the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to report proposals, every two years from 2015 on, "to slow the growth in national health expenditures" to significantly below the rate of medical inflation. (From 2019 on a different, but similarly constraining, target is required.)

To be clear, these recommendations are to apply to what you and I choose to spend on our health care – nongovernmental spending. They are to include recommendations that the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) "can implement administratively."

What are those "administrative" means that the federal bureaucrats at HHS can use to prevent us from keeping up with medical inflation in trying to protect our loved ones stricken by illness or injury? HHS is empowered to impose so-called "quality" standards on doctors, standards they must follow under pain of losing the ability to contract with the health insurance plans that the individual mandate will require Americans to have.

To prevent "too much" private money being spent on health care, those standards could establish just which diagnostic tests and medical treatments are permitted under what circumstances – and which are not. Thus, the government could prevent people from getting particular life-saving medical treatments – even when paid for entirely by their own money. (For details and documentation, go here.)

The Obamacare law doesn't define what it means by the "rationing" it says IPAB can't use. Its apologists will claim that the "quality" standards limiting treatment are simply "cost-effective" means of assuring patients get "appropriate" care. Consequently, the "rationing" prohibition will not be an enforceable restraint courts could use to protect Americans from denial of medical care. It's not so much a shield against treatment denial as it is a rhetorical sword to ward off the law's critics.

The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia describes rationing as "Government allocation of scarce resources and consumer goods, usually adopted during wars, famines, or other national emergencies." Health care does not need be "scarce" (see here). But, when government bureaucrats tell you what treatments, paid for with your own money, you can and can't have – that is certainly "government allocation" of health care.

The Obamacare law authorizes federal bureaucrats to impose limits on what life-saving medical treatments Americans are allowed to get. It may not call this "rationing." But that doesn't mean it won't be.

Go here for more about Obamacare and rationing.

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, which includes abortion funding, health care rationing

The following news release was issued today, June 28, 2012.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today left intact the dangerous rationing provisions and abortion funding in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The decision is a blow to efforts to protect the vulnerable lives of unborn babies, elderly persons and those with serious illnesses.

"Any law that results in funding the killing of unborn children and the withholding of medical care must not stand," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "The state's pro-life majority is extremely disappointed that the nation's highest court has upheld a law that will lead to abortion funding and rationing."

Today's Supreme Court National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruling, upholding most of the Obamacare law, is a call to action for the right-to-life electorate to work to elect a Congress and president this November committed to repealing the law in 2013, in order to prevent a future in which abortion insurance will be heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers and federal bureaucrats will be authorized to ration life-saving medical treatment.

Under the enacted law, federal tax-based subsidies will begin in 2014 to subsidize millions of private insurance plans that will cover abortion on demand, including some plans ("multi-state plans") that will be administered by the federal government. Under another provision of the law, the federal government could even order many plans that do not receive federal subsidies to cover abortion as a "preventive" service. The law also created an array of other mechanisms and funding pipelines by which access to and subsidies for abortion can be expanded if President Obama wins a second term.

Moreover, few Americans realize that under Obamacare, private citizens' right to spend their own money to save the lives of their own families will be subject to drastic restriction.

"If President Obama wins re-election, it will mean massive abortion subsidies and it will put the lives of millions at risk through systematic government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care," Fischbach added.

Unless repealed, Obamacare will give federal bureaucrats the power to impose so-called "quality" measures on all health care providers, under which treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed to save that patient's life or preserve the patient's health but which runs afoul of the imposed standards will be denied, even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it. In 2015 and thereafter, an 18-member "Independent Payment Advisory Board" is directed to inform the federal Department of Health and Human Services how to use those imposed standards to limit what private citizens are permitted to spend on their own families’ health care to below the rate of medical inflation.

The much-anticipated decision also upholds the requirement that each state establish an insurance exchange. The exchanges are marketplaces where citizens will select their coverage plans. States without an exchange plan in place by Jan. 1, 2013, will have one imposed upon them by the federal government; the Dayton administration has already begun plans to establish a Minnesota exchange.

"MCCL renews its call to legislators to work together on establishing and implementing an exchange that will exclude abortion coverage, and will guarantee coverage for pregnant women, persons with disabilities, elderly persons and other vulnerable people," Fischbach said.

The provisions of the law that will authorize rationing are documented at http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/index.html.

Obamacare, abortion, and judicial activism

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). The Court will likely issue its ruling in June.

The primary question under dispute is whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to compel every private citizen to purchase a particular commercial product (health insurance) -- an unprecedented move made by Pres. Barack Obama's health care law. Defenders of Obamacare claim that Congress does have this power, so the Court should not strike down the legislation as unconstitutional.

Yet many of these Obamacare defenders -- including Obama himself -- think the Court was right to strike down all of the democratically-decided state laws on abortion in Roe v. Wade and to reaffirm that position in subsequent rulings. They think that state legislatures do not have the power under the Constitution to prohibit or even significantly limit elective abortion.

Look at these two cases. To say that state abortion bans are constitutionally impermissible is absurd. There is simply no support for a right to abortion on demand in the text or history of the Constitution. Indeed, states were banning abortion at the same time (the latter half of the 19th century) they were approving the very constitutional provisions the Court later said precluded bans on abortion!

On the other hand, to say that Obamacare violates the Constitution seems quite plausible. The Constitution limits Congress (as opposed to state legislatures, which are afforded much greater freedom under the Tenth Amendment) to certain enumerated powers, which on the face of them do not include the power exerted under the Obama health care law. Obamacare is an unprecedented assertion of federal government control.

Speaking recently about the possibility of the Court striking down his signature accomplishment, Obama urged "judicial restraint" and said that the Court should not "[overturn] a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." (Obama later clarified that he does not deny the Court's power of judicial review.)

Now look at another case. In Gonzales v. Carhart the Court upheld (i.e., did not overturn) the democratically-decided federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion. Obama fiercely condemned the ruling (and he has called partial-birth abortion a "legitimate medical procedure"). Yet the partial-birth abortion ban passed with large bipartisan majorities and broad public support; Obamacare passed (contrary to the president's claim) by a tiny margin on a purely partisan vote against broad public opposition, leading to huge losses by the president's party in that fall's elections.

Obama claimed that overturning Obamacare would be "judicial activism," saying: "I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here's a good example."

No, that's not what judicial activism is -- it is not the same as judicial review. Properly understood, judicial activism is the substitution of personal policy opinion for the Constitution. It is making law rather than faithfully interpreting and applying it. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.

Judicial activism is the philosophy that seems to characterize the president's various judicial opinions. Obama wants the Court to strike down constitutional laws (e.g., any conceivable limits on abortion) and uphold unconstitutional ones (Obamacare). He favors partial-birth abortion, so he wants Court-mandated partial-birth abortion on demand. He favors unprecedented federal government control over health care, so he wants the Court to allow it.

In a 2001 interview, Obama advocated "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Not via the American people deciding to amend the Constitution -- which is how our Republic's governing document may be legitimately changed -- but by a handful of unelected judges deciding to impose their own, more "enlightened" vision in place of the Constitution, without the consent of the governed.

That is the radical Obama approach. It's part of what is at stake in November.

HHS issues new rule on Obamacare scheme to fund abortion insurance

Douglas Johnson and Susan T. Muskett of National Right to Life report:

The Obama Administration has taken another step in what amounts to a four-year plan to make abortion-covering health insurance, subsidized by the federal government, commonly available in the United States.

The latest action came on March 12, when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a lengthy regulation that spells out how some of the components of the massive 2010 Obama health care law ("ObamaCare") will be implemented.

The new rule — consuming 644 pages, including HHS's commentary — is concerned mainly with the "exchanges," which are the government-operated health insurance markets that must be established in every state by January 1, 2014. While states may retain responsibility for administering the exchanges, they must do so according to the detailed blueprints provided in the federal law and in federal regulations, including the new rule.

One part of the ObamaCare law establishes a big new program to provide federal subsidies for tens of millions of American families whose household income is 400 percent or less of the federal poverty level ($92,000 for a family of four). (Only health plans that join the exchanges will be eligible to sign up federally subsidized clients, which provides a strong incentive for health plans to enlist in the exchanges.) These federal subsidies can be used to purchase health plans that cover all abortions. This is one of the abortion-expanding aspects of ObamaCare that caused NRLC to strongly oppose the legislation when it was under consideration in Congress in 2009 and 2010. ...

The new rule spells out some, but by no means all, of the details on how abortion coverage will be paid for in the developing exchange system. ...

Once a person is enrolled in an abortion-covering plan, he or she will be required to pay a defined monthly charge for the abortion coverage, dubbed the "abortion surcharge" by critics. This abortion surcharge is not optional — every enrollee in the plan must pay it, including families that have moral objections to abortion and/or that contain no females of reproductive age.

Some media stories have reported that the "abortion surcharge" will be $1 per month, but in fact, the law and rule say something quite different — they say that the surcharge must not be "less than one dollar per enrollee, per month." The surcharge could be a good deal more than $1, depending on how many abortions are paid for and how much they cost.

Neither the law nor the rule contain any limitations on reasons for which abortions are sought or how late in pregnancy they occur.

HHS has so far avoided spelling out in any detail how the abortion surcharge payments will be made. From the pro-life perspective, the exact method of collecting the payments is not very important. The most important fact is that the federal government will be helping tens of millions of Americans purchase exchange-participating health plans, many of which will cover abortion on demand. When the government pays for health insurance, it pays for what the insurance pays for. The abortion surcharge is merely a bookkeeping device that is intended to obscure the reality that the federal government will be purchasing abortion-on-demand insurance — which is a sharp departure from decades of previous federal policy under the Hyde Amendment, the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, and other federal programs.

Please read the rest.

In implementing ACA, vulnerable lives need to be protected

The following news release was issued yesterday, Dec. 21, 2011.

ST. PAUL — Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) supports efforts for Minnesota to create the health insurance exchange required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

"We firmly believe that an exchange created by our state, for our state, will be immensely better than one imposed on us by the federal government," said Scott Fischbach, MCCL Executive Director. "The time is now to get this work done."

The ACA allows states the flexibility to make determinations about the health insurance exchange required under the law, so it best fits the state’s needs as well as complies with federal law. To avoid being forced into the federally-administered exchange, Minnesota must prove by Jan. 1, 2013, that it will have an operational exchange by the Jan. 1, 2014, deadline.

Detailing part of the exchange requirements, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a bulletin on Dec. 16 providing guidance on establishing an essential benefit set for individual and small group plans. The guidance allows states to choose the essential benefit set from among the largest existing insurance plans in the state. By selecting one of the state-specific plans, Minnesota is afforded the opportunity to set the benchmark of essential health benefits for our state.

According to the ACA, maternity and newborn care must be included in any package of essential health benefits. By also excluding abortion coverage, Minnesota would move in a positive direction toward offering protections for the unborn that the ACA does not. Additionally, safeguarding against denial of care based on age, "quality of life" or degree of disability would protect Minnesota's elderly and disabled citizens from the threat of rationing.

When the ACA was passed in 2010, MCCL and other pro-life organizations opposed it because of its disregard of reasonable protections for our nation's most vulnerable citizens, including the unborn, the disabled and the elderly.

"Despite our opposition, the ACA has become law, and while we hope that it will be repealed or struck down, we believe it is vitally important to continue our efforts to protect our state's most vulnerable citizens, even under the confines of this deeply flawed law," Fischbach said. "By ensuring that no one is denied care because of age, disability or quality of life, we can work to build a health care system that doesn't discriminate against our state’s oldest and most vulnerable citizens."

U.S. House to take up Protect Life Act on Oct. 13

The following is from National Right to Life (NRLC).

WASHINGTON (October 6, 2011) — The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up the NRLC-backed Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) on or about Thursday, October 13, 2011. This bill would correct the numerous abortion-expanding provisions of the federal health care law ("ObamaCare") enacted in early 2010. The bill, sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), is similar to the "Stupak-Pitts Amendment" which initially passed the House in 2009, but which was kept out of the final health care law due to opposition from pro-abortion Democratic senators and President Obama.

Please click here to send a message to your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, urging him or her to support the Protect Life Act and to oppose all attempts to weaken the bill. You can modify the suggested message as you see fit.

To read the October 6 letter sent by NRLC to House members in support of the bill, click here. To read detailed testimony by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, presented to a House subcommittee in February 2011, about why H.R. 358 is needed, click here.

Celebrating International Day of Older Persons

The following is a news release from MCCL GO.

Today, Oct. 6, 2011, has been declared the International Day of Older Persons by the United Nations. It is a day to focus on the issues of aging and demographics and to celebrate the treasures that older persons are in every society around the globe.

According to the July 2011 United Nations Report of the Secretary General, Follow-Up to the Second World Assembly on Aging:

"The composition of the world population has changed dramatically in recent decades. Between 1950 and 2010 life expectancy worldwide rose from 46 to 68 years, and it is projected to increase to 81 by the end of the century.

"For the first time in human history, in 2050 there will be more persons over 60 than children in the world. Almost 700 million people are now over the age of 60. By 2050, 2 billion people, over 20 percent of the world’s population, will be 60 or older."

With this demographic information in mind, some are beginning to question the worth and dignity of older persons. It has even been suggested that older persons are a "burden" to societies.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO). "Older persons ought to be protected with the full weight of national laws ensuring their right to life."

Older persons face greater challenges today than ever before, as is highlighted in a U.N. press release quoting the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health Anand Grover.

"As we take note of the International Day of Older Persons, let us together find ways to ensure that our older persons have the legal rights and protections they need to live out their natural lives," Fischbach added.

How the health care debate is about human equality

From a new essay by Yuval Levin regarding health care policy and the 2012 presidential race:

Centralized management of the health-care sector inevitably invites an explicitly utilitarian approach to comparing the worth of different people's lives as a matter of public policy. Deciding what treatments to cover for which patients involves the government's determining whose lives are worth living and whose are not. Princeton's Peter Singer, an unabashed advocate of such public rationing, explained in the New York Times a few years ago that such an approach would, for one thing, require the government to value the lives of the disabled less than those of everyone else—a quadriplegic, for instance, should be valued at roughly half the worth of a healthy active person. "Some will object that this discriminates against people with disabilities," he wrote, but that's only because we begin from the premise that all human beings are equally valuable. That can't be true, Singer argued, since the very fact that we seek cures for illnesses and disabilities proves that we believe such conditions make life less worth living. He concluded: "Disability advocates, it seems, are forced to choose between insisting that extending their lives is just as important as extending the lives of people without disabilities, and seeking public support for research into a cure for their condition."

This kind of embarrassing sophistry is precisely where public control of the health-care system, and the resulting public rationing of treatment, must lead—to a rejection of human equality as a principle guiding government policy. Centralized bureaucratic administration of coverage decisions leaves no room for moral diversity (so, for instance, Obamacare compels everyone to fund abortion, despite some cheap tricks employed to make it seem as though money is not fungible). It leaves no room for individual decisions, and fewer ways for families to weigh their priorities and make unavoidable but difficult judgments humanely and compassionately.

Read the rest.

U.S. House passes permanent ban on federal funding of abortion

Yesterday, from National Right to Life:

WASHINGTON -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nationwide federation of right-to-life organizations, today commended the 251 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted to pass the landmark No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), but directed sharp criticism at President Obama and at the 175 House members (all of them Democrats) who voted against the bill.

"There are over one million Americans who are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment policy – but President Obama, although he claims to seek abortion reduction, continues to work against that policy," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "The White House veto threat demonstrates yet again that President Obama is determined to expand federal subsidies for abortion on demand – despite his verbal smokescreens. The 175 House Democrats who voted against the bill will be firmly marked as supporters of federal subsidies for elective abortion."

The bill was supported by 235 Republicans and 16 Democrats. It was opposed by 175 Democrats.

In a candid opinion piece titled "Time to Stand Up for Abortion Funding," published today on a blog operated by The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, Jessica Arons – who is director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress (a nonprofit organization with very close ties to the Obama White House) – called on pro-abortion members of Congress to drop the pretext that they do not seek to establish federal funding of abortion. "First, stop referring to the Hyde Amendment as an 'historic compromise' or 'settled law,'" Arons advised. "Such language only reinforces the misconception that abortion funding restrictions are necessary and proper. They are not. ... Finally, mount a full-throated defense of public funding for abortion – or rather of comprehensive health care that includes abortion coverage, regardless of the funding source."

For many years, federal funding of abortion has been limited by a patchwork of laws – many of which expire annually, because they are incorporated into annual appropriations bills. The best known is the Hyde Amendment, but this law applies only to funds that flow through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill, and it expires annually. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ("Obamacare"), enacted in 2010, opened new pipelines for federal funding of abortion, which are not governed by the Hyde Amendment or any other statutory restriction (see here). H.R. 3 would codify the principles of the Hyde Amendment on a permanent, government-wide basis, applicable to both longstanding federal health programs and to the new programs created by the PPACA.

Further details on specific components of H.R. 3, including conscience protections for pro-life health care providers and a provision applying to the District of Columbia, are found in NRLC's May 3 letter to the House of Representatives, and in a Q&A factsheet issued by the office of Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), the prime sponsor of H.R. 3.

NRLC letter in support of No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

From a letter sent today from National Right to Life to members of Congress:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nationwide federation of right-to-life organizations, urges you to support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3) when it comes before the House of Representatives on May 4.

For many years, federal funding of abortion has been restricted by a patchwork of overlapping laws – many of which expire annually, because they are incorporated into annual appropriations bills. The best known of these is the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits both direct federal funding of abortion and federal payments into any health plan which covers abortion (with narrow exceptions). These same principles have been applied, through separate laws, to the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, SCHIP, military health programs, and other federal health programs. These principles have broad public support – as recently as April, a CNN poll found that 61% of respondents opposed public funding for abortion.

Regrettably, however, the 111th Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). During consideration of that legislation, language was proposed (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) to apply the principles of the Hyde Amendment to the multitude of programs created by the bill, and the House initially approved that language – but no such provision was part of the enacted law, due to opposition from President Obama and the Senate majority. Consequently, the enacted PPACA contains multiple provisions authorizing funding of abortion and funding of health plans that cover abortion. For documentation, please see NRLC's February 9, 2011 testimony before the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, here and here.

H.R. 3 would codify the principles of the Hyde Amendment on a permanent, government-wide basis, applicable to both longstanding federal health programs and to the new programs created by the PPACA. A Member's vote on H.R. 3 will essentially define his or her position, for or against federal funding of abortion, for the foreseeable future. NRLC will include the vote on final passage of H.R. 3 in our scorecard of key right-to-life votes of the 112th Congress. Moreover, we reserve the right to also score the roll call on the Motion to Recommit, which we anticipate will be an attempt to make the bill far narrower than the traditional Hyde Amendment – an attempt consistent with the Obama Administration's ongoing attempts to "reinvent" the Hyde Amendment and to preserve legal authorizations for federal funding of abortion. Certainly, the veto threat on H.R. 3 issued by the White House yesterday provides additional graphic evidence that President Obama is opposed to meaningful statutory limitations on federal funding of abortion – notwithstanding his past attempts to obfuscate this issue.

We would like to comment on two additional components of H.R. 3. The bill would codify the principles of the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which has been appended to the original Hyde Amendment on every Health and Human Services appropriations bill since 2004. This provision would solidify important protections for health care providers who do not wish to participate in providing abortions – which is especially important in light of the Obama Administration's February 23, 2011 action rescinding the conscience protection regulation issued by the Bush Administration.

H.R. 3 would also codify the "D.C. Hyde Amendment," which is the prohibition on the use of government funds to pay for abortion in the Federal District (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest), recently restored by enactment of the FY 2011 omnibus appropriations bill (Public Law 112-10). Most of the objections to this section misconstrue or misrepresent the constitutional status of the District of Columbia. Under the Constitution, the District is exclusively a federal jurisdiction. Article I says that Congress alone exercises "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the Federal District. The local administrative government is a component of the federal government. It is constitutional nonsense to speak of "non-federal funds," because all government funds in the Federal District are federally controlled, federally appropriated funds – and that is why H.R. 3 applies the Hyde Amendment principles to these funds.

Over one million Americans are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. In order to preserve and extend this lifesaving policy, NRLC respectfully urges you to reject the anticipated Motion to Recommit, and to vote to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Thank you for your consideration of NRLC's positions on these critical issues.

On National Healthcare Decisions Day, MCCL urges citizens to make wishes known in advance directive

The following is an MCCL news release.

In recognition of National Healthcare Decisions Day on Apr. 16, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) is encouraging every Minnesota citizen to make their medical care wishes known in an advance directive. Minnesota's oldest and largest pro-life organization, MCCL has always advocated the use of advance care planning.

"Documenting your medical care wishes and discussing them with loved ones and care providers is essential," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "People have a right to direct their health care in Minnesota, even when they need someone to represent them."

MCCL has fought for this right to be recognized in Minnesota law. Legislation which could be used to justify the withdrawal not only of medical care, but also food and fluids, without the patient's consent, was proposed as early as 1986; MCCL successfully blocked it from becoming law. When such legislation was passed in 1989, MCCL successfully lobbied for inclusion of protective amendments authorizing advance directives for health care.

In 2006, a year after Terri Schindler Schiavo was starved to death by court order, MCCL supported the Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Prevention Act. The initiative would have established a presumption of nutrition and hydration in the absence of a health care directive or informed consent. It also would have created a website and a statewide campaign to educate the public of the importance of completing a health care directive or living will. The bill was approved by two House committees; no further action was taken.

Minnesota Statute 145C.15 (and here) requires the provision of health care, nutrition and hydration when such care, "in reasonable medical judgment, has a significant possibility of sustaining the life" of a person, unless a health care directive indicates such care is not the person's wish.

MCCL has made available the "Will to Live" health care directive, a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care (DPAHC) document which empowers citizens to declare their health care wishes and to select an agent or agents to make decisions about medical care when the person is unable to do so. Unlike most living wills, the DPAHC does not require the signer to have a terminal condition. The "Will to Live" directs that the person be given food and fluids, and it creates a presumption for treatment with the opportunity to describe limited, specific exceptions, such as when the person is dying. The "Will to Live" can be downloaded from the National Right to Life website. Copies may be obtained by contacting MCCL at 612-825-6831 or mccl@mccl.org.

"To ensure the protection of their own lives, we urge people to complete a Will to Live as soon as possible," Fischbach added.

U.S. Senate to vote on defunding Planned Parenthood and Obamacare

From National Right to Life:

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on Thursday, April 14, or Friday, April 15, on two special bills that are strongly supported by National Right to Life. Please follow the guidance below to call the offices of your two U.S. senators immediately to urge them to support these bills.

The first Senate vote will occur on House Concurrent Resolution 35, which would remove funding for the entire Obama health care law that was enacted in 2010. The Obama health care law contains multiple provisions that will, if fully implemented, result in government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care. In addition, the Obama health care law contains multiple provisions authorizing funding of abortion and funding of health plans that cover abortion.

The second Senate vote will occur on House Concurrent Resolution 36, which would cut off federal funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates. (This bill is similar to the Pence Amendment that was adopted by the House of Representatives on February 19; this will be the first time that the Senate has voted on this issue.) PPFA is the nation's largest abortion provider, reporting 332,278 abortions in 2009. It appears that abortion accounts for roughly one-third of the aggregate income generated by PPFA-affiliated clinics.

For more information on these two issues, please see the letter sent to the Senate by National Right to Life on April 12, posted here. (Note: The Senate cannot vote on the two bills until after the House of Representatives passes them, but that is likely to happen on April 14.)

Please call your senators today! Click here and use the "Call Now" box. When you enter your zip code, you will be shown the correct phone numbers to call for your two U.S. senators. You will also be shown a few short suggested "talking points" to use in your conversations with the senators' staff persons. In addition, you will be given an opportunity to easily send a short e-mail to National Right to Life, if you wish to do so, to report on how your call went.

Please call today, and ask your like-minded friends to do the same!

The problem of abortion in health care -- and how to solve it

The following is written by Doug Johnson, Legislative Director at National Right to Life.

Innumerable polls show that the great majority of Americans reject the notion that abortion should be regarded as a routine part of "healthcare." For example, a 2010 Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 76 percent of Americans said that federal funds should never pay for abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother.

Until the 2009-2010 Congress, federal law for the most part reflected this majority opinion. The Hyde Amendment, for example, annually prohibits any funds that flow through the Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriations bill from funding either abortions or managed care plans that cover abortion (except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest). Another example: For decades, the hundreds of private health plans that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program have been prohibited from covering elective abortions.

During the 111th Congress, the House of Representatives initially acted to apply these same principles to legislation to restructure the healthcare system. In November, 2009, the House voted 240 to 194 in favor of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which would have prohibited federal subsidies for elective abortion in any component of the healthcare legislation.

Regrettably, the bill later muscled into law by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid -- the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (PPACA) -- contained no such language. Instead, we find an array of abortion-expanding provisions, concealed behind a hodge-podge of artful exercises in misdirection, bookkeeping gimmicks, loopholes, and provisions that are rigged to expire.

President Obama tried to further cloak the abortion-expansive provisions of the bill with a hollow executive order -- a document that was dismissed by the president of Planned Parenthood as a "symbolic gesture."

Last July, while implementing the very first major component of the law, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan program, HHS happily approved state-submitted plans that explicitly covered elective abortions. When National Right to Life threw a spotlight on this development, the administration made a discretionary decision to exclude abortion from the program, although nothing in the PPACA prohibited such abortion coverage.

Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union said, "What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban." Nancy-Ann DeParle, the head of the White House Office of Health Reform, assured the pro-abortion activists that the discretionary decision to exclude abortion from the PCIP program "is not a precedent for other programs or policies" under the PPACA.

You can bet on that. The PPACA explicitly authorizes refundable "tax credits" (essentially, entitlement payments that are not related to actual tax liability) to purchase health plans that will cover all abortions -- a sharp break from the principles of the Hyde Amendment. The PPACA authorizes the Office of Personnel Management to administer "multi-state" plans that are implicitly authorized to cover elective abortions. The PPACA provides $9.5 billion in funding for community health centers, which pro-abortion activists have targeted as new abortion-providing sites, without any restriction on the use of these funds for abortion. And the list goes on.

These abortion-expansive provisions would be corrected by enactment of the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). The bill is closely patterned on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment -- indeed, Prof. Sara Rosenbaum of the George Washington University School of Public Health, testifying against the bill, acknowledged, "I would say this bill would bring health reform into line with what originally was Stupak-Pitts."

The bill also contains important safeguards to prevent health care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions. Such protections are badly needed in the face of accelerating campaigns by groups such as the ACLU and the National Health Law Program to force individual and institutional healthcare providers to choose between providing abortions or abandoning the healing arts.

What is ultimately needed, however, is a clear, comprehensive, uniform policy to prevent federal subsidies for abortion. This would be provided by enactment of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-Il.), currently with 208 cosponsors. The House Judiciary Committee will mark up H.R. 3 on March 3.

Opponents of these bills have frantically sought to manufacture diversionary issues, such as the claim that the Smith-Lipinski bill contains tax hikes (imaginary), or that the Pitts bill would somehow discourage insurers from covering treatments for injuries caused by abortions (utterly baseless). The core policies contained in these bills have already been in effect for decades for the FEHB program, Medicaid, the military and most other federal health programs, and experience belies the imaginative claims to the opponents.

During the initial congressional debates over federal funding of abortion during the 1970s, the pro-abortion side engaged in similar scare tactics -- claiming, for example, that the Hyde Amendment would result in a huge increase in abortion-related morbidity and mortality. Instead, there was no measurable increase at all -- but, as I noted in recent congressional testimony, another dramatic effect did occur: Well over one million Americans are alive today, who otherwise would have died in federally funded abortions.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, this is a "tragic result." But anyone who advocates "abortion reduction" -- a goal to which even President Obama has given lip service -- should embrace the Pitts and Smith-Lipinski bills to codify and extend the principles and the lifesaving effects of the Hyde Amendment.

Why Obamacare should be repealed

A new letter from National Right to Life urges members of Congress to vote to repeal the 2010 health care overhaul, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare).

From the letter:

As enacted, the PPACA contains multiple provisions authorizing federal subsidies for abortion, and additional provisions on which future abortion-expanding regulatory mandates may be based. Many of the abortion-subsidizing provisions of the legislation are detailed in an NRLC affidavit posted on our website here, and further documented in other materials posted here.

In addition, the PPACA contains multiple provisions that will, if fully implemented, result in government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care. Among the most dangerous:

• The department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be empowered to impose so-called "quality and efficiency" measures on health care providers, based on recommendations by the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is directed to force private health care spending below the rate of medical inflation. In many cases treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed or advisable to save that patient's life or preserve or improve the patient's health but which runs afoul of the imposed standards will be denied, even if the patient wants to pay for it. 

• The law empowers HHS to prevent older Americans from making up with their own funds for the $555 billion the law cuts from Medicare by refusing to permit senior citizens the choice of private-fee-for-service plans whose premiums are sufficient to provide unrationed care but which HHS, in its unlimited discretion, disallows. The Obama health care law could thus lead to elimination of the only way that seniors will have to escape rationing -- by limiting their right to spend their own money to save their own lives. 

• The law instructs and authorizes state bureaucrats to limit the value of the insurance policies that Americans may purchase. Not only will the exchanges exclude policies from competing in an exchange when government authorities do not agree with their premiums, but the exchanges will even exclude insurers whose plans outside the exchange offer consumers the ability to reduce the danger of treatment denial by spending what those government authorities claim to be an "excessive or unjustified" amount. This will create a "chilling effect," deterring insurers who hope to compete within the exchanges from offering adequately funded plans even outside of them, so that consumers will find it increasingly difficult to obtain health insurance that offers adequate and unrationed health care.

Detailed information on these and other components that will result in rationing is available here.

To summarize: The law is so riddled with provisions that violate right-to-life principles that it cannot simply be patched. It must be repealed, and any replacement legislation must contain all necessary safeguards for the right to life of the most vulnerable members of the human family.

Federal election analysis, and where we stand

The following is by Doug Johnson, Federal Legislative Director at National Right to Life (NRLC).

The first two years of the Obama Administration have been a time of multiple setbacks for the pro-life cause at the federal level. Behind smokescreens of soft, deceptive rhetoric, the Administration has pushed an abortion-expansionist agenda on both domestic and overseas fronts, employing executive powers, nominations, and legislative attacks. The single greatest pro-life setback has been enactment of the massive [health care] restructuring law ("Obamacare"). ...

Now we have received the judgment of the electorate: The bloc of Democrats who abandoned the pro-life movement to satisfy President Obama and Speaker Pelosi suffered severe losses. In all, at least a dozen House incumbents who had taken high-profile stands against federal funding of abortion, but who ended up voting for the health care law, were defeated by pro-life challengers (or, in Stupak's case, suddenly retired).

Far greater losses were sustained among the ranks of House Democrats who had seldom or never voted pro-life: upwards of 40 were replaced by firmly pro-life Republicans.

It was the assessments of candidates by the mainstream pro-life organizations, such as NRLC, that correlated with the results: According to a national post-election poll conducted by The Polling Company, 24% of those who actually voted remembered receiving a previous communication or hearing an ad from National Right to Life about the candidates.

Fully 30% of voters said that abortion affected their votes, and this group broke nearly 3-to-1 in favor of the pro-life candidates.

Asked, "Did the issue of funding for abortion in the Obama health care law affect the way you voted in today's election?," 31% of voters responded in the affirmative — 27% who said they voted “for candidates who opposed the health care law,” and 4% who said they voted “for candidates who favored the health care law.” In other words, 87% of the voters who said the issue mattered, voted in accord with the NRLC position.

The take-home lesson, for lawmakers in both parties, could hardly be clearer: If you vote against the pro-life position –as defined by the mainstream pro-life groups — on a major abortion-related public policy issue, you will be held accountable by a substantial bloc of the electorate. ...

In addition to the replacement of about 40 career pro-abortion incumbents and about a dozen defectors, in about 25 other cases pro-life House incumbents of both parties are being replaced (through either retirement or defeat) by new, firmly pro-life candidates. In only one district in the entire nation was a firmly pro-life incumbent defeated by a solidly pro-abortion challenger. ...

What's that all boil down to? Overall, there has been a net shift in the pro-life direction in the House of 40 to 55 votes, depending on the issue. This brings within the realm of possibility full House approval of a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal subsidies for abortion, such as the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act proposed by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), which has already been endorsed as a priority in the "Pledge to America" issued by the incoming Republican majority leadership in October. It also sets the stage for a battle royal over legislation to repeal the Obamacare law itself and replace it with something consistent with pro-life principles.

The election results were good in the Senate, as well, where the net shift in the pro-life direction will be from four to seven votes, depending on the issue. No senator is being replaced by a successor who has a weaker position on abortion.

This shift in the Senate will enhance pro-life prospects for fending off new legislative attacks on existing pro-life policies — among these, an ongoing effort to repeal a ban on performing abortions in U.S. military medical facilities, and a variety of bills intended to further enhance the Administration's ongoing efforts to expand abortion access throughout the developing world. But President Obama's veto pen may still pose a formidable obstacle to enactment of legislation targeted at the gross deficiencies of the Obamacare law, and of the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act.