{"id":204,"date":"2009-07-23T15:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-23T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html"},"modified":"2009-07-23T15:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-07-23T15:00:00","slug":"abortion-mandate-in-health-car","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html","title":{"rendered":"Abortion Mandate in Health Care is Not “Choice”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, I disagree that “any sensible health care reform” is going to have to cover, as you call it “reproductive health care,” or as I would say, “abortion.”  <\/span>Americans do not want their federal dollars paying for abortions.  <\/span>Let me set the facts straight.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font> <\/p>\n

You cite polling numbers from the pro-abortion groups Guttmacher Institute and National Women’s Law Center. I would note, however, that polling data from non-partisan sources show that Americans are increasingly opposed to abortion.  A recent Gallup poll<\/a> shows that for the first time since 1995, more Americans call themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice.”    <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

According to another recent Gallup<\/a>, President Obama’s decision to overturn the Mexico City Policy, which prohibited federal funds from going to overseas “family planning” clinics that provide abortion services or counseling, was one his most unpopular decisions.  <\/span>Only 35 percent of Americans approved of his decision, while 58 percent disapproved.  <\/font>If American’s don’t want their tax dollars spent on overseas abortions, they certainly don’t want those dollars spent on abortions here at home.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Under the House health care plan, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (right now Kathleen Sebelius<\/a>, known for her pro-abortion stances) <\/font>and a Health Benefits Advisory Committee will be tasked with coming up with what “essential benefits” must be covered by all private and public health care plans.  <\/span>Given President Obama’s statement <\/a>on the campaign trail that <\/font>“reproductive care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan I propose,” it is likely that the “essential benefits” that they come up with will include abortion.  <\/span>Individuals and employers<\/a> will be forced to have coverage that includes these essential benefits, or pay a tax penalty.<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font>You trump the need for “choice” in your post – I agree. Americans should be able to choose a health care plan that does not<\/b> mandate abortion coverage.  <\/span>They should also be able to choose to not have their taxpayer dollars fund a procedure that involves the taking of a human life.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This concern is generating bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.  <\/span>A growing number of Democrat lawmakers<\/a> in the House <\/font>have said they would vote to oppose a health care bill unless it explicitly includes language removing the abortion mandate from health coverage.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Finally, I think the issue is more complicated than simply wanting “health care to be equal for all.”  <\/span>It is even more complicated than saying “[w]omen have the Constitutional right to choose.”  <\/span>The Supreme Court has found a Constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to have an abortion.  <\/span>However, that right is subject to limitations, such as the government’s interest in “preserving and promoting fetal life.” (Gonzales v. Carhart)<\/i>  <\/span> <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font>For health care to truly be “equal for all” it must consider the need to preserve and protect the unborn.  <\/span>Under the health care plans being considered in Congress, state laws protecting the unborn, such as parental notification laws and informed consent laws could be preempted.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font>This is not equality and it is not what Americans want.  <\/span>Any health care reform legislation must include protections against taxpayer funding of abortions and mandatory abortion coverage.  <\/span>It must also respect and protect state abortion laws and the deep divide of conscience in the country of when life begins and that abortion takes a human life.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click <\/font>here<\/font><\/a>.<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Barry, I disagree that “any sensible health care reform” is going to have to cover, as you call it “reproductive health care,” or as I would say, “abortion.”  Americans do not want their federal dollars paying for abortions.  Let me set the facts straight.    You cite polling numbers from the pro-abortion groups Guttmacher Institute…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,217,123,172],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abortion","category-health-care","category-president-barack-obama","category-pro-life-2"],"yoast_head":"\nAbortion Mandate in Health Care is Not "Choice" - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abortion Mandate in Health Care is Not "Choice" - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry, I disagree that “any sensible health care reform” is going to have to cover, as you call it “reproductive health care,” or as I would say, “abortion.”  Americans do not want their federal dollars paying for abortions.  Let me set the facts straight.    You cite polling numbers from the pro-abortion groups Guttmacher Institute…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-23T15:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abortion Mandate in Health Care is Not \"Choice\" - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abortion Mandate in Health Care is Not \"Choice\" - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry, I disagree that “any sensible health care reform” is going to have to cover, as you call it “reproductive health care,” or as I would say, “abortion.”  Americans do not want their federal dollars paying for abortions.  Let me set the facts straight.    You cite polling numbers from the pro-abortion groups Guttmacher Institute…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2009-07-23T15:00:00+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html","name":"Abortion Mandate in Health Care is Not \"Choice\" - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-23T15:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2009-07-23T15:00:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/abortion-mandate-in-health-car.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abortion Mandate in Health Care is Not “Choice”"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}