A QUESTION FOR 2008 CANDIDATES  

For Congressional Candidates: “Will you vote to exclude abortion coverage in any “universal,” mandatory, or taxpayer-subsidized health care plan?”

For Presidential Candidates: “Will you veto any “universal,” mandatory, or taxpayer-subsidized health care plan that does not exclude abortion coverage?”

There is always something new in the pro-life legislative arena. The current move by the Democrats and liberals in control of Congress to vastly expand taxpayer-funded health care programs is something that pro-life voters should have on their radar screens. For years they have advocated policies designed to move us inexorably toward socialized medicine AKA “national healthcare.” Of course, it’s all under the guise of helping the poor, the disenfranchised, the elderly, and our children.

On July 18, President Bush announced his intention to veto a Senate bill that expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to include families earning $80,000 a year. The President strongly criticized the plan, saying “If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the S-CHIP program—which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people—I’ll veto the bill.” He pointed out that taxpayer-funded health care for families earning $80,000 a year would “cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan.” This would be a giant leap toward government-run health care or socialized medicine.

Given the current political climate, and the fact that President Bush hasn’t much time left in office, we could be facing an era in which legislation that would vastly expand taxpayer-subsidized health care will not only pass in Congress, but receive, instead of a veto, the enthusiastic signature of whoever ends up in the White House in 2008. And we can fully expect that abortion coverage would not be excluded from it.

For example, on July 18, The Chicago Tribune reported that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democrat presidential hopeful John Edwards, said in a speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, that her husband’s health-care plan would provide insurance coverage for abortion. She called it “a true universal health-care plan” that would cover “all reproductive services, including pregnancy termination,” referring to abortion.

We appreciate President Bush’s vigilance on this matter and we thank him for his veto threat. But that is not enough. We expect pro-life Members of Congress to amend any government-funded health care proposal so that it excludes abortion coverage. This would accomplish three things:

1. Protect babies who otherwise might be killed by a “free” abortion.
2. Protect taxpayers from being coerced into paying for the killing of babies waiting to be born.
3. Defeat national healthcare altogether. The liberals are likely to withdraw their bills rather than see abortion excluded.

• If your Member of Congress is pro-life, please bring this matter to his/her attention. Ask for a commitment to oppose any health care provision that does not exclude abortion. CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD: 202/224-3121.
• Many of you attend events for the various Republican Congressional and presidential candidates. Often, after the candidate speaks, there is time for questions and answers. Please ask the candidates you meet the questions that appear at the beginning of this article.
• Please let us know how they answer you. As always, thank you for your help and dedication to the pro-life cause.

PRESIDENT MAY VETO APPROPRIATIONS BILLS 
On May 4, 2007 President George Bush sent a letter to both Speaker of the House Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in which he said, “I believe it is the most basic duty of Government to guard the innocent. With that in mind, I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.”

Pro-life provisions that restrict and/or regulate the practice of abortion are attached to the annual appropriations bills each year, and it is because of these riders that programs like Medicaid do not pay for abortion (except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother as stated in the modified Hyde Amendment passed in 1993). Other provisions prevent taxpayer funding for abortions, abortion advocacy and the killing of human embryos.

For instance, the Department of Defense Authorization Bill currently prohibits the performance of abortions by medical personnel or in medical facilities on U.S. Military bases, with exceptions for babies conceived as a result of rape or incest (private funds must be used in this instance, although a military hospital can be used) or when the life of the mother is threatened (DOD funds can pay for this).

Year after year, most Democrats and RINO Republicans try to water down or remove these provisions. But the pro-life coalition in Congress has generally prevailed and the efforts of the abortion cabal have been defeated. This year, with Pelosi and Reid in charge, the challenge to the pro-life measures is even greater.

Please notify your Member of Congress that you expect him/her to vote to sustain all prohibitions on abortion funding contained in the various appropriations bills. CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD – 202/224-3121.

Please thank President Bush for his decision to veto any provision that weakens Federal policies and laws on abortion. (president@whitehouse.gov).

WILL AUSTRIA DECLARE CHIMPANZEE A “PERSON?”  
There is a 26-year-old male chimpanzee named Hiasl living in a sanctuary that recently declared bankruptcy.

Animal rights activists worry that Hiasl and other apes may wind up homeless unless they are legally declared “persons.” Hiasl’s supporters argue he needs that status to become a legal entity that can receive donations and get a guardian to look out for his interests. “Our main argument is that Hiesl is a person and has basic legal rights,” said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge on behalf of the Association Against Animal Factories, a Vienna animal rights group.

“We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions,” Mr. Theuer said. “If we can get Hiasl declared a person, he would have the right to own property. Then, if people wanted to donate something to him, he’d have the right to receive it.” Mr. Theuer has vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary. (Associated Press, May 4, 2007)

PLEASE READ The RNC for Life Report 
Many of you have asked for our analysis of the pro-life positions of the candidates currently seeking the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. It’s all here in the Winter-2007 edition of the RNC for Life Report, entitled Will the Republican Nominee Respect Us in the Morning?

Please read it and pass it along to your pro-life friends and family members. If you would like to order extra copies for Republican and pro-life events, please call us at 1-618-462-5415 to place an order. If you would like to subscribe to the Report which comes out four times a year, send $15 to RNC/Life, P.O. Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002. Thank you!