But did you know, according to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, only 6% of the 1.37 million abortions occurring annually in the US are because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child? Of that 6%, you could safely assume about half are directly due to a threat to the mother’s life. That’s about 3%.

But think about it. Even in the cases of, for example, an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, where both mother and baby cannot both survive, the “choice” is obvious and medically necessary, and any OB/GYN would perform the necessary surgery to remove the embryo – no abortion clinic needed. In fact, all OB/GYNs are trained to perform the procedure involved with a pregnancy termination, called a D&C, and medically it is the same procedure you would have if you were suffering a miscarriage. However, it is an individual doctor’s choice whether they wish to perform an elective pregnancy termination, i.e. an abortion, and most of them do not. Why? Because abortion is not health care.

© Copyright 1996-2008, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)

So here’s what I don’t get: if there are 12 pro-life Dems who will not vote for the current bill unless the Stupak language is inserted; and if Congress needs their votes in order to pass the bill (and they do); and if the current bill truly would not allow tax payer funded abortions without the Stupak language; then why would the pro-choice Dems refuse to insert the Stupak Amendment language?  If we end up with the same bill either way, why would they be willing to risk not passing health care reform because of this one issue? Why wouldn’t they just go along with it to get the bill passed since it supposedly doesn’t change anything?

The resistance to the Stupak Amendment by pro-choice Dems, even to the extent of no health care reform at all, doesn’t make sense unless the Stupak Amendment actually would make a difference in whether abortions are paid for with tax dollars. Or am I missing something here? Somebody help me out.

“Under the amendment, individuals receiving federal subsidies for health care coverage are prohibited from using those subsidies to pay for abortions or to purchase insurance policies that cover abortions. The amendment does not prevent private insurance plans from offering abortion services nor does it prohibit individuals or states from purchasing abortion coverage with non-federal matching funds. The amendment specifies that even those who receive federal subsidies may purchase a supplemental policy with private money to provide abortion coverage.

The language in the Stupak amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde amendment which has been in place since 1977 and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law currently prohibits federal funding of abortion in all federal health programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). My amendment simply applies current law, the Hyde amendment, to H.R. 3962, health care reform.”

Even though currently legal, I believe abortion is morally wrong because it takes the life of an innocent human being. Naturally, I would be outraged if the Federal government were to force me to pay for abortions via either tax funded abortion services or tax funded insurance policies covering abortion.

You can learn more about the amendment and H.R. 3962 at http://www.house.gov/stupak/.