Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


No Mandated Abortion Coverage in National Health Care

posted by Jay Sekulow

In an effort to revamp the nation’s health care system, there’s a troubling development underway in the legislative process  Congress is considering health care legislation that would identify abortion as a health ‘benefit’ and mandate coverage of abortion services in national health care plans. 

 

That’s right – abortion would be considered a mandatory health benefit provided in all government and private insurance plans under a proposal being considered by Congress.

The truth is that abortion must never become a mandated ‘health benefit’ in our country. 

The President Obama-backed health care package is certain to result in a disturbing change that will make abortion part of the mandatory health care services to be covered by both government and private insurance plans.  That’s why it’s so important for Congress to take the action required to keep abortion out of the category of mandated health benefits.  In our analysis, Congress must act to explicitly exclude abortion from any government mandated coverage or taxpayer funded health plan. 

 

Barry, this open door must be closed.  This is an issue that needs to get more attention and once the American people understand what’s at stake, we’re confident they will demand that Congress exclude abortion from any mandated health coverage.

 

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(24)
post a comment
Rich

posted July 20, 2009 at 11:25 am


I am not so sure that the public would reject inclusion of abortion coverage as part of the health care program. Certainly, public opinion about abortion has hovered around both sides of the 50% for a long time. A recent poll showed support for abortion dwindling but the numbers are still close to even.
The truth is that abortion policy has long been held hostage and totally controlled by a minority of lawmakers seeking to curry favor with the religious right. Elected officials can never be trusted to do the right thing because they are fixated upon pleasing any group that might vote for them. Because of that we need to take this issue away from federal and state legislatures. I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion.
Not likely to happen but I am a bit weary of the incessant moral posturing by the religious right and Republicans. I am tired of being told that our laws need to be based upon some hypocrites’ interpretation of an ancient text that doesn’t even address the topic. I am sick to death of lawmakers seeking to force everyone to live to a particular religious code. Those who attempt to do this know nothing of morality and ethics. They clearly don’t understand freedom. In fact, I generally find that the opposite to be true of the loudest preachers and politicians. Sanford, Ensign and Haggard have truly shown us the real character of the religious right and the Republicans.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 20, 2009 at 1:16 pm


Rich, which code would you base your legal decisions on – the “what I feel like at the time” code?



report abuse
 

RJohnson

posted July 20, 2009 at 1:32 pm


I think it is safe to say that the GOP will gin this issue up to stop any kind of action on health care reform. Now, will they do anything meaningful to actually decrease the number of abortions, or stop abortions altogether? Never! It would deprive them of an issue that they can reliably use to activate their base every election cycle.
And, like mindless lemmings, many in the pro-life movement (especially many of their leaders, like Jay) answer the call of their GOP masters when it comes to the pro-life issue. The GOP had their chance to pass a human life amendment, and never even brought it up to committee for hearings. Instead, they waited until they lost the majority in a house of Congress to start talking about abortion again.
No doubt Jay will say that the GOP is more reliable on pro-life issues than the Democrats. That is like saying that a clock that runs slowly is more reliable than one that does not run at all. And as long as the pro-life patsies in leadership pander to the GOP handlers, this will continue to be the case.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm


Your Name (whomever you are),
I am sorry that you seem to feel that people who do something and believe something different than you are all operating out of what you call the “what I feel like at the time” mindset. Perhaps you should allow that most folks out there really do think about their life and try to live it as best as they can.
The fact is that many look at the abortion issue and come to a different opinion than you. You are entitled to your religious viewpoint about abortions and are then entitled to conduct your life based upon your viewpoint. You are not entitled to make everyone live their lives based upon our religious code. In other words, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. If people wanted to live to your religious code, they already would be.
As I said earlier, it is clear that Republicans and the religious right like to talk about morals and supposed values yet they always seem to do the opposite of what they talk about, either ethically or fiscally. I prefer not to take direction on my life from the likes of Sanford, Ensign and Haggard.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 20, 2009 at 2:24 pm


correction:
based upon our religious code
sb
based upon your relgious code



report abuse
 

Dave

posted July 20, 2009 at 4:37 pm


I do not understand Jay’s objection to federally-mandated coverage of abortion procedures. He aserts that “abortion must never become a mandated ‘health benefit’ in our country”, but fails to explain why. The presence of coverage does not force anyone to have an abortion if, for reasons satisfactory to them, they don’t want it. My current insurance covers cancer, but I’m still going to avoid cancer if I can. It certainly can’t be the cost to the government that bothers him, as the cost of maternity and the entire life of the newborn would far outweigh the cost of the abortion. This is especially true if the newborn suffers from serious birth defects, which would sometimes be the case when an abortion is considered. I’m left with only one guess as to his reasoning: his belief system tells him that if he were a pregnant woman, he should not have an abortion (that’s perfectly all right with me), and he feels that he should have the right to force others, independently of their beliefs, to adhere to his religious strictures. Is this it?



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm


”abortion as a health ‘benefit’”
Good!, it should be a benefit. Why a woman seeks to have an abortion is different from as individual. I’m tired of the conservatives constantly saying you can’t have something because it’s against our beliefs. Too darn bad! These people do not run the country NOR should they ever be allowed to run the country.
Theocratic oppression in the name of their religion and god. That’s Un American and something to fight about!



report abuse
 

Mary K

posted July 20, 2009 at 6:51 pm


It is not unamerican to defend “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
So – if an American firmly believes the baby is alive, there is a duty to protect its right to live, would be one way of looking at this – with non-religious parameters. We could also look at the scientific parameters – such as when does the child look alive according to our scientific data -such as heart beat and brain waves?
the woman’s right to choose has become such a dogma, that it has become unreasonable it trumps science and law. Obama spoke in favor of infanticide of babies who happen to survive abortion – because it had been the mother’s intent to kill the child.
But once a baby is born and breathing, (under any circumstances) it is a citizen, and yet Obama still called it the property of the woman – she could decide if it lived or died. Otherwise – we call this MURDER. In that case it would be clearly called murder.
So – these things need to be sorted out through science, reason or philosophy. There is a sense of ethics that has been eliminated in eh abortion/and infanticide arguments. The woman’s desire has become god in the matter.
Perhaps – as long as there is a “god” in this discussion, you could shop around a little.
And so – since some people feel this way – of course they are dismayed to be paying for other people’s abortions.
Just because we have given ourselves as a society the right to choose – does not make it “right.” So – those who see it as wrong, have every right to say so. And that is very American.



report abuse
 

Donna G

posted July 20, 2009 at 7:23 pm


Well articulated Mary K. When one sees that a 10 week old baby really looks like a baby and even has fingerprints, then the ‘right’ of the mother to determine it’s future becomes an obligation to ensure that baby is given the best possible chance at life. We send mother’s to prison if they abuse or seriously neglect their children, yet we never use the ‘god’ argument to say that mother had the ‘right’ to inflict pain on her child. How dare we demonise Hitler when we kill millions of innocents who have no voice!
So it is my ‘right’ and obligation to speak for the unborn when even a mother will not.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 20, 2009 at 8:02 pm


Mary K,
Science does not support any blanket anti-abortion stance. If anything, science clearly shows that the fetus has none of the attributes that constitute “human” for a quite a bit of time.
I am troubled that you say “these things need to be sorted out through science, reason or philosophy. There is a sense of ethics that has been eliminated…” I think it wrong to assume that women haven’t already sorted these things out, they just came to a different conclusion than you. As well, I have never met a woman yet who had an abortion who did not consider the ethical aspects in great detail. Again, their take on the ethical implications was different from yours.



report abuse
 

Mary K

posted July 20, 2009 at 8:21 pm


How about the ethics, then of a living breathing child, who was aborted and survived, but then left on a shelf because the mother’s “choice” was that it should die? No admirable ethics there, I’d say. If the mother can “choose” for the living child to die – how else we then sanctify “choice as the highest god to determine who lives and dies? IS the child really just a possession of the mother and she can determine these life/death issues?
I also disagree that women have thought out all of these issues so clearly before having an abortion. You give us a lot of credit. Women are vulnerable on many levels at that point. It is a hard decision to make – so much seems to be on the line.
And again – even in your argument – you hold up her choice and feelings as the highest god in the matter – virtually infallible, actually, in the way you present it.
And I disagree that “science clearly shows that the fetus has none of the attributes that constitute “human” for a quite a bit of time.”
There is an entire science now for bonding with the unborn child, and helping him/her develop mentally and emotionally in the womb; and these things have a lasting impact on the intellectual ability of the child (measurable). So life IS happening in the womb. We can debate about when to take that seriously…
But it goes beyond “choice” as the highest god in the matter.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 20, 2009 at 10:20 pm


Mary K,
I think your assertion that a woman’s choice has become the “highest god” in the matter is a bit narrow in view. I have been kicking around on the planet for 56 years and in that time, just like anyone else, have met and befriended lots of people. My experience is that the vast majority of people think about these issues quite a bit. Certainly, many don’t but I find them a statistically small group. I don’t much care for the word but we humans are a ‘diverse’ group, not just in ethnicity but in mental makeup. I manage folks who approach problems in ways that I would never think of. They say the same to me. Yet, we arrive at viable solutions independently that work equally well. The bottom line here is that there is more than one way to see the world and more than one way to navigate through life.
You point out that women are vulnerable at many levels. True but then again, aren’t we all? And also, how would I know that your current decision is not the result of being a vulnerable woman at the blunt end of various social/family/religious pressures? You could be and you might not be. I just give you the credit of having thought it through the best you can and then having come up with what you think is ethically best. I do understand that the philosophical framework you arrived at will forever make you believe that abortion should be fought.
You and I came to different decisions about abortions. We have both thought it through. I can assure that people like myself have thought about this in great detail. You sell people short when you put forward the sentiment that only those who want to outlaw abortion are thoughtful people and everyone else is oblivious and thoughtless.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm


I think I’ll wear a blue dress today, buy myself a nice lunch and then just maybe drop by the abortion clinic and have a baby sucked out of me and sold for profit. Is that what this country has come down to?
Ethics, you call a right to privacy or a choice of the matter, a freedom. Well, as a matter of fact I do. Well, just for your information the baby has a right to protect itself from the mindset of individuals who constantly threaten their very existance through laws and views which support the view of ending their life. Call it what you will, but a baby is a baby developing in the womb with the mother’s care. It is once again interesting how people try and taint the view of protecting life by speaking up about the subject as some right wing view. Is a left wing view letting people do whatever they want with whatever they want to a growing child and then calling it privacy?
C



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 21, 2009 at 5:42 pm


Your name,
You ask,” Is a left wing view letting people do whatever they want with whatever they want to a growing child and then calling it privacy?”
I guess, per your definition, yes. I agree with it. Conservative don’t want women to have abortions because of beliefs and morals they have chosen. You can have that but what you don’t have a right to do is enforce, religiously or legally, your views on others, even if you don’t like what’s being done. Frankly, the world doesn’t revolve around your beliefs, whether you like it or not. If a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason, that is her business and not yours, period.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted July 23, 2009 at 1:34 am


The facts are staggering. According to CNN, over 86.7 MILLION Americans were without healthcare in the past two years. Do I think there needs to be a health care plan for these folks, especially with unemployment being at an all time high? You bet. Do I think mandated abortion services should be provided in the coverage? Not on your life. And the reality and bitter irony of the situation is that while we are trying to save the lives of people who cannot get health services they need, on the other hand, it truly IS SOMEONE’S LIFE that will be extinguished if mandatory abortion coverage is offered. Sending MILLIONS of dollars of our taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood each year is bad enough; don’t add fuel to the fire by sending more of our hard-earned money to fund mandatory abortion service coverage. Remember…a little life is at stake.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 23, 2009 at 5:59 pm


Once again I read how a person has a right to privately kill. What is the difference Gwiddion9 between you killing your child privately in a doctors office or outside the doctors office? Location Legally the only reason why these laws are in place is somebody having legal authority has put into place through their viewpoint just that, that you have a right to kill your child through private law. It is interesting to note that if the same action was done outside the office and with your own hand when the baby screamed for life , you would be behind bars. Another quick note here is this: Stopping people from murdering their children is the right thing to do. It is not only my view, but a view you should entertain also. Seeing how you not only protect killing children by law , I find it to be a view of a killer. C



report abuse
 

Azalea

posted July 28, 2009 at 6:19 pm


I am strongly against abortion; however, I have different side to this argument. Isn’t it time that the US stopped being in debt? Don’t average citizens eventually have to pay the consequences of owing money? The US can’t pay for the basic things. When the average citizen owes money he eventually has to pay the bill. Abortion is a medical issue that the government needs to stay out of–especially when it come to paying the bills. If the government quit spending wasteful dollars as the average citizen has to do when there is no more money — may be it could finally balance the budget and not owe money to other countries who wait to take control of us. The debtor is a slave to the lender.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 28, 2009 at 8:59 pm


Stopping people from murdering their children is the right thing to do. It is not only my view, but a view you should entertain also.
Boris says: Abortion is NOT murder no matter how many times you say it. Stopping people from indoctrinating their children with the asinine superstitions of Christianity is the right thing to do. Anyone caught doing this should be jailed with the rest of child molesters and perverts.



report abuse
 

Brenda

posted August 6, 2009 at 1:30 am


I typed in “murder definition” into Google and the first entry that came up is listed below:
Definitions of murder on the Web:
* kill intentionally and with premeditation.
* mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable.
* unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So if you are pregnant and you are intentional about going to a clinic to get an abortion that would be considered premeditated if you planned it. I guess one could say they stumbled upon a clinic and just dropped in and happened to be pregnant and asked what they do there and decided to get an abortion because it sounded nice, but not likely. Then they get the abortion which basically mangles the unborn baby as to make it unrecognizable because it is sucked up using a vacuuming device which amputates all its parts.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 6, 2009 at 1:19 pm


Neither a doctor or a woman think they are killing anything in an abortion. Murder is the willful taking of a life. So if abortion were a crime it would still only be involuntary manslaughter, not murder. You should study the law before you expose your ignorance of it. But we aren’t going to turn American women into government owned breeding pigs. So go find some other freedom you’d like to take away fro our citizens. Fascist.



report abuse
 

Brenda

posted August 7, 2009 at 1:48 am


Abortion is the willful taking of a life. If a woman were to accept that she were taking a life when submitting to an abortion she would not follow through with it. Women do it because they are in denial. If your wife were pregnant would you call her a government owned breeding pig? Women who carry babies are not owned by the government nor are they pigs. I can’t tell whether you respect or have a hatred for women. If you respect them you have a rude way of showing it. I’m not taking any freedom from you, but people who abort babies take away the babies freedom to live.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 7, 2009 at 9:58 am


Brenda,
People like you want to deny babies the right to be wanted by their parents. People like you want to force parenthood on people who neither want it or are not ready for it. But people like you will not get your way because there aren’t enough of you any more. Now that most of the world knows Jesus Christ never existed and that the Christian religion is an evil hoax your kind of backward thinking will soon disappear.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted August 24, 2009 at 4:00 pm


Boris,
If I’m the baby in the womb, let me see. Getting cut to pieces in the womb or being unwanted by my parents. Hmmmm. I would say my parents better get used to having me because I don’t want to be the victim of extreme child abuse. I don’t want the pain, suffering or death. As far as you calling people fascists, maybe you should look at the tone of your own messages. You want to tell people what to believe a ton of times. The world’s residents will make their own conclusions about God and Jesus.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm


If I’m the baby in the womb, let me see. Getting cut to pieces in the womb or being unwanted by my parents. Hmmmm. I would say my parents better get used to having me because I don’t want to be the victim of extreme child abuse. I don’t want the pain, suffering or death.
Boris says: There aren’t any babies in wombs, only fetuses. If you were like 19 out of 20 fetuses you would be aborted when you were about the size of a raisin and would feel nothing. It’s not the taking of a life because life is what you make it. You have no life yet of your own and would only be there by the permission of the woman. Permissions are not rights. Let’s talk about what this issue is really about which is forced parenthood. Neo-cons like you want to force parenthood on people who don’t want it or are not ready for it. Every child should have the right to be wanted by their parents. Suppose you get your wish and are born to a woman who cannot get an abortion. Do you think winding up in a plastic bag and then being tossed in a trash dumpster is a better fate than being aborted?
As far as you calling people fascists, maybe you should look at the tone of your own messages. You want to tell people what to believe a ton of times. The world’s residents will make their own conclusions about God and Jesus.
Boris says: People can’t make intelligent decisions about God and Jesus based on religious propaganda. For example people have a right to know that Christianity did begin in Palestine and that the first adherents to Christianity were not Jewish. People have the right to know that Jesus never existed and that Christianity evolved from sun-worshipping cults in Egypt. “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.- Thomas Paine in “An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry” (1803-1805); found in manuscript form after Paine’s death. Christianity is the product of the biggest fraud and cover-up in history.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.