Pelosi and House Dems Strike Abortion-Limiting Hyde Amendment From Labor/HHS Appropriations Bill

See the source image

FoxNews.com reports that

Congress has blocked federal dollars from paying for abortion coverage for decades now. But that could change if pro-choice Democrats have their way.

It’s not a surprise that money dictates policy in Washington. Want to understand how a given lawmaker or presidential administration feels about a particular issue? Look to how much money – or little – they devote to a project.

If they spend any money from the federal coffers on a particular program at all.

That’s why the Hyde Amendment has been a part of every government spending bill since 1976, just after the Supreme Court ruling which legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade.

It’s named after late Rep. Henry Hyde. R-Ill. Hyde is known for two things. He chaired the House Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2001 and was the lead House impeachment manager for President Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial. He also crafted the Hyde Amendment, barring the government from spending money on abortions.

Few were more ardent pro-lifers in Congress than Henry Hyde.

“It violates your right to be born,” said an impassioned Hyde on the House floor during the summer of 1995 about abortion. “Your right to life, which our Declaration (of Independence) says, is a fundamental endowment..it is inalienable, the right to life.”

But the Hyde Amendment also represented a form of Congressional détente. Pro-choice and pro-life lawmakers reached a “deal” in the 1970s. It prohibited the funneling of federal dollars to Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program for abortion services.

Like most compromises, it was negotiated, as Henry Clay might say, “to hurt.” The Hyde Amendment made sure both sides took it on the chin – although both pro-choice and pro-life advocates alike might argue their side absorbed more of an impact than the other. Pro-lifers want to eliminate abortions completely. The Hyde Amendment certainly didn’t do that. A proposal to ban abortion would probably never make it out of the House – even with a Republican majority. That’s to say nothing of overcoming a filibuster in the Senate. Meantime, pro-choice lawmakers thought the Hyde Amendment was unfair for women who rely on health care assistance from the government. The Hyde Amendment impeded that.

“We believe that who you are, where you live, your zip code, your income, should not determine whether you have coverage for the basic part of reproductive health care,” said Rachel Fey of The Power to Decide, a group which works to prevent unplanned pregnancies.

However, Democrats have now stricken the Hyde Amendment from the House version of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. The full House approved a multi-spending bill package late last week to fund the government for fiscal year 2022. That plan included the labor/HHS appropriations bill, sans the Hyde Amendment.

“I am proud that this bill promotes equal treatment for women through increased funding for Title X and by repealing the discriminatory Hyde Amendment,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. “But I do believe repealing the Hyde Amendment is the best thing we can do to support our mothers and families and help prevent, rather than penalize unwanted pregnancies and later, riskier and more costly abortions.”

Fey called this a “game changer.”

But, upending 45 years of federal policy enraged pro-life Republicans.

“There are non-starters. There are game enders,” said Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., about DeLauro’s maneuver.

“This is a real red line for the Republican Conference,” observed Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the top GOPer on the House Appropriations Committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tipped her hand on the Hyde Amendment at a December, 2020 press conference.

“Way before I was in Congress the Hyde Amendment was there. I was thinking, ‘How can we get rid of that?’ So it’s long overdue, getting rid of it, in my view,” said Pelosi.

She forecast that the Democratic House would craft a bill to torpedo the Hyde Amendment in the coming year.

But the annual appropriations process in Congress is a complicated path. It was historically significant that the Appropriations Committee and full House halted the Hyde Amendment. But then there is the Senate. And, annual spending bills have to clear two rounds of filibusters with 60-vote thresholds each. So despite the House action, few believe that ending the Hyde Amendment will ever survive the Senate.

If you are surprised that Pelosi and Company are attempting to end the Hyde Amendment, then you have not been paying attention to “The Party of Death”.

Prior to 1973, abortions were allowed in some states but restricted or almost banned in others. Every state legislature made their own decision on whether to allow abortions and under what circumstances.  There was no Federal Law in regards to abortion.   Then, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade. It declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and, in doing so, affected abortion laws in many other states.

For any low  information voters who might be reading, I present the following summary:

Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.

“We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun (1973), majority opinion in Roe v. Wade

When you talk to Far Left Democrats about this stopping of a beating heart, they will  claim that, a human fetus is “just a clump of cells”. 

From the scientific perspective, Dr. Carlo Bellieni, in his book “Dawn of the I: Pain, Memory, Desire, Dream of the Fetus,” says:

As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?

There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.

In fact, the scientific evidence is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus.

From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.

As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a “human” quality leap at a given moment — certainly not science.

Several years ago, then-President Obama, who was brushing away tears on Tuesday Morning on behalf of limiting the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens, said the following,

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.

My question for Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Elite, is:

When do children stop being a “punishment” and start being precious lives to shed tears over?

Is it simply a matter of “Political Expediency”?

Until He Comes,

KJ

DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.

 

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00
¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00
¤5.00
¤15.00
¤100.00

Or enter a custom amount

¤

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Pelosi Caught Trying to Sneak Abortion Funding into Coronovirus Economic Stimulus Plan, Blames Republicans for Delaying Bill

pelosi-1-1

DailyCaller.com reports that

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to include a potential way to guarantee federal funding for abortion into the coronavirus economic stimulus plan, according to multiple senior White House officials.

Speaking to the Daily Caller, those officials alleged that while negotiating the stimulus with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Pelosi tried to lobby for “several” provisions that stalled bipartisan commitment to the effort. One was a mandate for up to $1 billion to reimburse laboratory claims, which White House officials say would set a precedent of health spending without protections outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment blocks clinics that perform abortions from receiving federal funding, and Democrats have pushed the Trump administration to end it since he was elected in 2016.

“A new mandatory funding stream that does not have Hyde protections would be unprecedented,” one White House official explained. “Under the guise of protecting people, Speaker Pelosi is working to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent covering abortion — which is not only backwards, but goes against historical norms.”

A second White House official referred to the provision as a “slush fund” and yet another questioned “what the Hyde Amendment and abortion have to do with protecting Americans from coronavirus?”

Politico confirmed after this article went to press that the Hyde Amendment provision was eventually removed from the stimulus later on Thursday and will hit the House floor as a separate bill.

Despite Trump’s assurance that he would sign any stimulus bill that Congress approved, several Republicans rejected the stimulus offered by Pelosi and Mnuchin.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Thursday morning he was totally opposed to Pelosi’s plan and wanted to draft a new proposal over the next 24-48 hours.

Pelosi pushed back on that suggestion during her Thursday press conference.

“Families have needs,” she stated. “We don’t need 48 hours. We need to just make a decision to help families right now.”

“I’m not sticking around because they don’t want to agree to language,” Pelosi said of Congress’s upcoming recess week. “Right now we have to find our common ground, work together, to get this done as soon as possible.”

Pelosi’s office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shows her hypocrisy as often as she does her alcoholism.

“Families have needs”, she says.

If she was that concerned about “Families”, she would not have tried so desperately to bypass the Hyde Amendment.

In other words, she would have concentrated on saving babies instead of killing them. Even in a National Health Emergency, where American citizens lives’ and livelihoods are at risk, Pelosi continues to worship at the altar of Molech, the god of the Old Testament who demanded child sacrifices.

I was going to ask where her priorities are, but that is a stupid question.

They are definitely not with the people in the Bay Area she is supposed to be represented, as evidenced by the homeless and the addicts turning San Francisco into their own personal toilet and flop house, as human feces and used needles line the streets.

What is it with the Far Left Democratic Party’s worship of death and their predilection to help themselves and special interest groups, instead of protecting average Americans, especially during such a time as this?

Did Pelosi actually believe that she was going to get by with that garbage?

I guess she did because when she got caught she acted like a petulant child, blaming the Republicans for “holding up aid”, instead of taking responsibility for her own attempts to place self-serving abortion legislation into a bill whose subject had nothing to do at all with the barbaric practice of killing human beings in the mothers’ wombs.

This Emergency Relief Legislation, which the House is supposed to be working on together, is supposed to be about taking care of the needs of average Americans during the Coronavirus Outbreak.

Instead, Speaker Pelosi decided to make it all about what was important to her and her fellow House Democrats.

Which, come to think about it, is what the entire last two years under a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has been about anyway.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Gun Control, Planned Parenthood, and Tears of Hypocrisy

th85XTKBQMOn Tuesday, in an address televised across our nation, the President of the United States of America, appeared to “tear up” as he lamented the American Children who have become victims of “Gun Violence”.

However, there are other young lives, ended needlessly every year, that he scarcely gives a thought to.

The Christian Post reports that

America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, conducted nearly 324,000 abortions and received over $553 million from taxpayers in 2014, the organization’s latest report shows.

Planned Parenthood released its annual report for 2014-2015 which shows that although the organization performed fewer abortions, provided fewer services and saw about 200,000 fewer clients than in 2013, the organization received increased funding from the federal government.

Although the Hyde Amendment explicitly forbids federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions, the amount of taxpayer dollars that went to Planned Parenthood increased by about $25 million from 2013 to 2014, as the group received $553.7 million in 2014.

According to the report, “government health services grants and reimbursements” accounted for 43 percent of Planned Parenthood’s $1.29 billion in revenue during the reporting period.

While Planned Parenthood officials and supporters have claimed in combating attempts last year to strip the organization of its federal funding that the tax money it receives is vital for providing women with the “healthcare” they need, the report indicates that the organization is still benefiting from $61 million in “excess revenue.” In 2013-2014, the organization benefited from $127 million in excess revenue.

While Planned Parenthood maintains that abortions only consist of about 3 to 10 percent of its services, the abortion giant only issued 2,024 adoption referrals, as compared to the 323,999 abortions it conducted in 2014.

While Planned Parenthood conducted approximately 4,000 fewer abortions than it did in 2013, the report states that the organization conducted over 4.2 million STD/STI tests, over 682,000 cancer screenings and 1.1 million other women’s health services.

The pro-life group Live Action, headed by Lila Rose, found some inconsistencies with Planned Parenthood’s report.

In 2014, Planned Parenthood claimed to have prevented more unintended pregnancies than it did in 2013. Although the organization saw a decliine of more than 500,000 contraceptive services in 2014, it claims that it averted 578,681 unintended pregnancies, which is about 62,000 more than the 516,000 unintended pregnancies that the organization claimed to have averted in the 2013 report.

“So Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive services are DOWN across the board and yet they claim to have prevented MORE unintended pregnancies than the year before. How does that make sense?” the Live Action report asks. “Planned Parenthood says the number of unintended pregnancies averted is calculated using a formula from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which was founded by Planned Parenthood. Their report does not disclose the formula they used or how it apparently changed from 2013 to 2014.”

After the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress released a series of undercover videos last year purporting to show high-level Planned Parenthood officials violating a number of ethical and legal codes in negotiating compensation for aborted baby body parts, conservatives renewed a call to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding.

In response to that call, the House of Representatives have actually listened to their constituency for a change.

Politico.com reports that

The House on Friday approved legislation to defund Planned Parenthood for one year and to add new medical and reporting requirements on live births resulting from an attempted abortion.

The bills were the latest in the House’s response to a series of videos that opponents of Planned Parenthood say show that the organization is making money off the trafficking of human fetal tissue and organs. Planned Parenthood denies such claims and says the videos were highly edited.

But the videos have enflamed the already contentious debate over abortion and Planned Parenthood and are threatening to hold up a bill to fund the government before it runs out of money on Oct. 1. Friday’s votes, however, are unlikely to satisfy conservative lawmakers who are pushing Republican leaders to cut off Planned Parenthood’s federal support in must-pass legislation funding the government. 

The bill to defund Planned Parenthood was approved 241-187 with the support of two Democrats. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) voted present because he said the bill’s language wasn’t strong enough. The bill adding criminal penalties for not treating a baby born alive in the course of an attempted abortion passed 248-177 with the support of five Democrats. One Democrat voted present. Neither bill is expected to pass the Senate if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were to bring them up for a vote. President Barack Obama said he would veto them.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who sponsored H.R. 3504, the bill that would add criminal penalties, says his legislation would ensure that health care providers care for a baby that is born during an attempted abortion. Any health provider who is aware of anyone who violates that law would be subject to criminal penalties if they don’t report it. But opponents say that the language is not only repetitive — any baby born alive is already treated as a person with rights to medical care — but goes further than existing law and “would likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care,” the White House said in its veto threat.

The defunding bill, H.R. 3134, would eliminate about $255 million in federal funds to Planned Parenthood, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the cuts would likely result in more Medicaid spending down the road — $20 million in the first year and a total of $60 million over the next decade.

CBO, which said that its predictions were very rough, estimated that cutting Planned Parenthood’s federal funds would result in less access to birth control services, leading to more pregnancies. A portion of those pregnancies and children would likely be covered by Medicaid.

“This is not about pro-choice or prolife,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). “This is about the gruesome practices at an organization that receives over $500 million a year from the federal government. …I’ve seen the videos. And I can tell you that that is not health care.”

Prior to 1973, abortions were allowed in some states but restricted or almost banned in others. Every state legislature made their own decision on whether to allow abortions and under what circumstances.  There was no Federal Law in regards to abortion.   Then, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade. It declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and, in doing so, affected abortion laws in many other states.

For any low  information voters who might be reading, I present the following summary:

Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.

“We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun (1973), majority opinion in Roe v. Wade

When you talk to Liberals about this stopping of a beathing heart, they will  claim that, a human fetus is “just a clump of cells”. 

From the scientific perspective, Dr. Carlo Bellieni, in his book “Dawn of the I: Pain, Memory, Desire, Dream of the Fetus,” says:

As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?

There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.

In fact, the scientific evidence is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus.

From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.

As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a “human” quality leap at a given moment — certainly not science.

A few years ago, the same President Obama who was brushing away tears on Tuesday Morning on behalf of limiting the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens, said the following,

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.

My question for you, Mr. President, is:

When do children stop being a “punishment” and start being precious lives to shed tears over?

Is it simply a matter of “Political Expediency”?

Until He Comes,

KJ