As LifeSiteNews.com reports, pro-abortion politicians are praising the so-called compromise language on abortion funding within the Senate health care reform bill. Why would pro-abortion politicians support funding restrictions when they went over-the-top in their rejection of Stupak-Pitts? Because the restrictions aren’t real? LSN reports:
Rep. Capps, another 100% NARAL-approved legislator and author of the House’s phony compromise, praised Reid’s language and noted that it “closely mirrors my language” in the original House bill.
But the Capps amendment has already been shown to be a phony compromise. About Harry Reid’s compromise Senate bill, National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said:
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.
“Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements.”
The question for Harry Reid and other Congressional supporters of abortion funding is this: what is the difference between the Stupak amendment and the Capps amendment and how many more abortions are likely to be funded through the latter? Is there a permissible number of taxpayer-subsidized abortions and a number that is too much?
There is another reason not to trust pro-abortion politicians who say current federal law in the form of the Hyde Amendment is sufficient to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion: the law can always change. Indeed, some pro-abortion activists are already calling for that.
