Search this blog

John Mark Reynolds:

Whatever you think of health care reform, Christians should unite on keeping federal money from paying for abortion. This is a bi-partisan effort. A Torrey Honors alum who works in Washington in an email:

Sorry to bother all of you on a crisp autumn morning and sorry for the mass email, but I need to break into your early morning reveries with politics: please, if you possibly can - CALL your US Representative and ask them to support the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment to health care!!

After months and months of making the case that any kind of health care reform should at the very least not increase the amount of lives hurt and destroyed by abortion, (no matter whether apart from that you're for or against the current proposal) the Democrat leadership has finally been forced to allow a vote. The numbers are exactly on the line with no one knowing how such a vote will turn out, so every Member that even remotely might vote pro-life on something like the Hyde Amendment or overseas funding should be contacted and urged to vote the pro-life position. Right now, the vote is expected late today or tomorrow. Especially if you live in a district where the Member is not a solid pro-lifer (Souder, Boehner, Jordan and Herger for instance are all 100% pro-life), please call and ask them to vote for bi-partisan Stupak-Pitts amendment.

Even if your Representative is solid (or you don't have one!), please pray. This may seem like "just politics as usual", but if a vote is allowed today and it is defeated, it's over. We lose our case and any further influence in the health care debate. If health care reform then passes, thousands more will be spent on funding abortion and thousands more babies will die - by our hand, with our money. Please God, may it not be so.

If you don't know your representative go here, and once you know their name even if you don't know their direct number, just call (they won't get the emails until too late) 202-224-3121 and the Congressional operator will direct you to their office.


Update: The National Right to Life Committee regards this as “the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997.”

View Comments


15 thoughts on “Bi-Partisan Amendment on Abortion”

  1. David says:

    No! This amendment is a cynical ploy to get the wavering to vote for the health care plan. It is not a good thing. It is like in the movie Amazing Grace where they pass a low that torpedoes the slave trade in order to later abolish it. It is nothing more and nothing less.

  2. erin says:

    This may be a ploy for Dems to get more votes on the health care bill, but if our reps vote against it, and then health care passes (as it seems it might), we are guilty of the murder of millions more. We’re not asking that our reps vote for the health care bill, only that they vote for an amendment that would prevent federal funding of abortion. If our reps disagree with the bill, they should still vote to influence the shape of it – whether they supported it or not, if it goes through with abortion funding, they/we are guilty because of a lack of action.

    1. Bill Hoppe says:

      Planned Parenthood and other Abortion Profit Centers are gearing up to celebrate the funding of elective abortions by the Fed. The Stupac-Pitts amendment is the way to kill health care as the left doesn’t want it without the unlimited money for abortion. Protestants must step up to the plate on life issues!! The next life they take may be ours.

  3. Doug Thorson says:

    Debate on the Stupak-Pitts amendment is going on right now and Boehner is making it clear that even if this amendment is passed that it is unlikely to stay in the final bill. The Democrats are confirming that they will remove it from the final bill. Charles Rangel snottily says that guaranteeing Stupak amendment might be violation of ethics laws!!

    I think that pro-life members should support the bill but still oppose this health care reform bill.

  4. Josh Crews says:

    I need help. I feel so weird that this amendment, which sounded awesome, says “except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest”.

    My worldview can’t fit “this baby, we want to protect; but this baby from incest… just go ahead and kill it.”

    But I also want to slow or stop both abortion, and spending tax payer money on abortion.

    Does anyone else feel weird about this? How do you navigate it?

    Citation for the incest/rape/life-of-mother exclusion:

  5. CR says:

    I think some like Erin and David have hit the nail on the head. There is a strategy involved here. If I were a Republican representative I would vote against the amendment and here’s why. The Blue Dog democrats are between a rock and a hard place. First, they don’t like the health care plan as is. Not because they have any principles (some do perhaps) but because they are afraid of their constituency. You see, most of the blue dog democrats got voted by emotionalism from angry Republicans. Many of these blue dog democrats are in conservative districts. If this amendment passes this is a pass for these more conservative democrats to vote for the health care bill if abortion can’t be paid for. If Republicans do vote for the amendment along with the blue dog democrats (liberal democrats will vote against it) and the amendment passes, then the blue dog democrats can then vote for the health care bill.

    Respectfully, it’s too bad Reynolds doesn’t recognize this. He’s probably not familiar with the political statergy that goes on. I’m more befuddled by the National Right to Life. Given that they are a lobbying group, I’m befuddled that they’re ignorant of the politics. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans vote on this amendment.

    I just called my representative’s office and the assistant I spoke to the assistant to convey my understanding of this ploy and they understand that this is probably a ploy to get the blue dogs to vote for the final bill.

  6. Jen Barncard says:

    I am wondering what murdering (and that is what it is, murder)a baby has to do with healthcare? Also, is anyone else concerned that the abortion clinics open up more offices in black neighborhoods than in other white neighborhoods? African Americans make up about 17% of the population, yet they have 33% of the abortions. I think that is very sad. We should be presenting the option of adoption, NOT the final choice, abortion. Does anyone else have an opinion about that?

  7. Steve says:

    David & Erin are correct. Absolutely not! In a word; it’s called incrementalism.

  8. CR says:

    Well, the Stupak amendment has already been approved by the House. It’s funny, I’ve been watching Fox News and they’ve already said this is a win for the Democrats! And they are right. If Speaker Pelosi did not want this amendment to come to a vote she could have stopped it in a tracks and prevented a vote like she has done on other issues. But this was a strategic ploy to get the blue dogs to vote for the final health care bill and rather than Republicans voting against the Stupak amendment killing health care “reform” once and for all.

  9. Heidi Berggren says:

    Please do not fund abortion through the healthcare plan.

  10. The Constitutional does not grant Congress the right to force Americans to purchase health insurance. This nonsense must stop.

  11. Rachael Starke says:

    The sad thing about our political system is just how purely “political” it often is, but this is one time when a so-called “political” move may be this bill’s downfall. The little I’ve read indicates that the two main issues that are causing a perpetual stalemate are the public option, and the funding of abortion with taxpayer dollars. Liberal Democrats say they’ll refuse to vote for a health care bill without a public option; Republicans (mostly) will refuse to vote for a bill that contains it. That’s been known for some time.

    What hasn’t been as clear has been the dividing line on public funding of abortion. There has been some well-known “social issues” fatigue on the part of Republicans, as long with a longstanding unwillingness by moderate Democrats to break with the party line and support even moderate pro-life positions. The belief was that most Democratic leaders hold to a “abortion is a medical procedure like any other, and thus all insurance plans should be compelled to cover it” approach. That the Stupak ammendment passed, and with so many Democrats passing it, indicates two encouraging things:

    1. That there are far more Democrats than originally thought are beginning to acknowledge the growing majority of American who disapprove of abortion and will fight mightily to ensure our taxes don’t fund it.

    2. Most importantly – it builds another (hopefully, prayerfully) impenetrable wall for the Senate to confront. In additon to the public option/no public option dogmatists, you’ve got a large portion of Democrats who’ll refuse to sign any bill that restricts abortion coverage a la the Stupak ammendment, and almost universal refusal to sign a bill on the part of the Republicans that strikes the Stupak ammendment down.

    I can see how some would have conscience issues with not signing the ammendment because of potential incrementalism through the rape or incest clause, but that’s only with the presmuption that this is the exact bill to be debated by the Senate, which it most certainly won’t be. Everyone is well aware that the Unholy Trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will fight with everything they have to get that ammendment overturned, along with the public option. But with Congress sending such a clear signal now about the people’s perspective, that gets much harder. (If they have any interest in listening to the people… one can pray, yes?)

    IOW, it may have helped Nancy Pelosi win the intermediate battle, but in her hubris in thinking that the Senate will just roll over and repeal it, it may cause her to lose the war.

  12. Jerry says:

    Christ threw the money changers out of the temple..may the same happen at the Hospitals and Health Care facilities everywhere.

Comments are closed.

Search this blog


Justin Taylor photo

Justin Taylor, PhD

Justin Taylor is executive vice president of book publishing and book publisher for Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books