My wife, Gena, and I mourn with the rest of the nation over the murder and maiming of innocent citizens and lawmakers in Arizona this past Saturday morning. We, too, pray for the victims and survivors. It makes us even more passionate in our fight for human life and reminding the world that from the womb to the tomb, human life is precious and should be prized.
Last week, two questions dominated the political landscape regarding Obamacare. First, will the new 112th Congress repeal it? And secondly, if Obamacare didn't offer advanced directives for end-of-life planning (aka "death panels"), then why did the Obama administration just repeal a Medicare regulation and reference for it covered under the new health care law?
Those are both great questions. But the one question being overlooked by too many is this one: If the 112th Congress fails to repeal Obamacare, will it include "baby death panels" in the future? In other words, will taxpayer money be used to provide for abortions under the new universal health care law?
It's been coming down Washington's political pike for two years.
Remember, during the president's first year in office, when the Senate tabled the amendment introduced by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, which would have banned federal funds from providing for abortion in the universal health care reform bill?
Then the House and Senate, on secret Sunday sessions, passed an omnibus bill and its provision that also overturned the 1988 Dornan amendment, which prevented taxpayer dollars from funding abortions in Washington, D.C. (Tragically, that omnibus bill also appropriated $648.5 million for international family planning funding -- an increase of $103 million over 2009 -- and contained funding for Planned Parenthood and for the United Nations Population Fund, both of which have pro-abortion agendas.) Next will likely be the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the same when it comes to federal spending.
The 111th Congress repeatedly rejected any amendments to the universal health care bills that would have prevented taxpayer money from being used for abortions. In the end, even the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House and the Nelson-Hatch amendment in the Senate were sidestepped, on the basis that the president would sign an executive order promising that federal funds would not be used for funding abortions.
Of course, President Barack Obama's executive orders aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Proof came this past year, when it was discovered that federal funds were, in fact, being funneled to provide for abortive services in Pennsylvania and New Mexico.