DFLA PRAISES NEW EPA POLLUTION STANDARDS THAT WILL SAVE LIVES
Thursday, 22 December 2011 11:56
administrator
Democrats for Life of America
Protecting. Strengthening. Re-building.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kristen Day
December 22, 2011 202-220-3066
Washington DC – December 22, 2011 -- Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) praised the Obama Administration for issuing new Mercury and Air Toxin Standards that will protect health and save lives. The new standards require power plants to reduce the release into the air of dangerous pollutants and toxins such as mercury, arsenic, acid gas, nickel and cyanide.
“As pro-life advocates, we have to recognize the broader scope of protecting life. While abortion remains of overwhelming importance, an exclusive focus on abortion is not enough. There are other health and environmental dangers that we can address now to prevent deaths and health problems for young children and infants in the womb,” said Day. “Those who continue a narrow focus to protect only life in the womb are failing their constituencies and not being true to pro-life principles of protecting life at all stages.”
Mercury poses an especially grave threat to the unborn and young children. Newborn infants can be exposed to mercury in breast milk. The poor and the elderly are more likely to be affected with increased risk of illness and shortened life spans. The EPA standards will reduce by 90 percent the amount of these toxins entering our air. According to the EPA, this new rule combined with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule issued earlier this year are expected to avert up to 46,000 premature deaths per year, reduce the suffering or those with asthma by 540,000, and make a significant dent in other health risks from air pollution.
“We appreciate the new regulation on toxins. This, combined with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will protect the health and lives of millions of Americans,” said the Executive Director of Democrats for Life Kristen Day. “The new standards will provide the greatest health benefits to the unborn, young children, the poor and the elderly.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) also praised the pro-life benefits of the regulations, identifying environmental protection as essential to protecting “human life and dignity at all stages.” The Bishops further stated that “[c]hildren, inside and outside the womb, are uniquely vulnerable to environmental hazards and exposure to toxic pollutants in the environment.”
“We were pleased to see the USCCB recognize the pro-life benefits of the new Standards,” said Day. “Life continues outside the womb and this regulation will save lives. We in the pro-life community should recognize its importance.”
#
Last Updated on Thursday, 22 December 2011 12:42
ARE PRO-LIFE REPUBLICAN GROUPS RECOGNIZING THE PRO-LIFE BENEFITS TO HEALTH CARE REFORM
Tuesday, 27 September 2011 12:11
administrator
Since the health care law was signed in 2010, pro-life Republican groups have been clamoring that the PPACA funds abortion despite several legal rulings and legal opinions to the contrary. Republican groups spent millions of dollars to defeat pro-life Democratic Congressional Members because of their “alleged support for tax-payer funding of abortion.”
Recently, Bill Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs of Americans United For Life, whether intentionally or unintentionally, clearly spelled out what pro-life Democrats and judicial opinions have been saying all along -- the PPACA does not fund abortion and, in fact, provides clear provisions to disallow abortion funding. A recent legal ruling, SBA List vs. Driehaus, Judge Timothy Black ruled that the “express language of the PPACA does not provide for tax-payer funding abortion. That is a fact, and it is clear on its face."
The headline of Saunders rather confusing op/ed piece “Don’t Worry NARAL, Obamacare Still Funds Abortion in Insurance” goes on to describe, the numerous ways in which the law prevents funding of abortion and concludes that because of the law fewer health insurance plans will view abortion as routine and few insurance plans, public and private will include abortion coverage as a result of the PPACA. It appears that the headline is drastically at odds with the content of the article.
Saunders, a lawyer, first accurately explains that while insurance plans under the law can include abortion, there are “two pots of money for premiums.” Insurance plans that do cover abortion will be required, under the law, to set up a separate fund and collect an additional fee for abortion services. None of the tax subsides (i.e. federal tax dollars) can be used for that purpose which prevents direct and indirect public funding of abortion. Saunders accurately assesses that “it is logical” that” some insurance companies may decide to drop insurance coverage for abortion” to “avoid all the mathematic and logistical confusion that the PPACA requires for abortion coverage.” For those who oppose abortion, this is a victory.
The PPACA also allows states to pass laws to prohibit abortion coverage in any health plan in the exchanges even though there is no direct public funding of abortion under the law. Mr. Saunders states that, to date, twelve states have passed such laws. He further points out that the PPACA has had an additional effect of pushing private insurance companies outside of the exchange to review policies about forcing individuals to pay for plans that cover abortion. Again, those opposed to financing, whether public or private, of abortion the law delivers.
Saunders accurately states that “abortion is not healthcare – it hurts women and ends the life of an unborn baby.” From a pro-life perspective, true, abortion is not health care, but from that same perspective health care is pro-life. Pregnant mothers will receive pre-natal care and others will receive preventive care and life-saving care. Those with pre-existing and life-threatening diseases will not be turned away.
The pro-life movement had a tremendous victory with the PPACA. They just did not realize it because they were just too caught up with attempts by conservatives to “kill the bill” – an anti-life position. In the end, Saunders and others may be starting to recognize what pro-life democrats knew all along – the PPACA was a victory for pro-life advocates and it will provide life-saving care. And, supporting the bill is a pro-life position. However, the damage to the reputations of pro-life Democrats – particularly those who were defeated by pro-life advocacy groups -- will take far longer to undo.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 12:14
|
PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS EXPECT THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION TO ISSUE FINAL RULE THAT WILL ALLOW RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION
Monday, 21 November 2011 13:28
administrator
Washington, DC – November 20, 2011 -- The Obama Administration will announce shortly the final rule for the contraception mandate that was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) Pro-Life Democrats are expecting a religious exemption that is consistent with longstanding public policy and current law.
“The Obama administration is already unfairly under attack by Catholic conservatives who are using the proposed final rule to spread anti-Obama sentiment to lay Catholics,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life. “The Administration has no intention of forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs. It does not make any sense from a public policy perspective and it certainly is not smart politically to alienate Catholic voters.”
Current law does not mandate insurance coverage for contraceptives nor does it not require free birth control. Under the current law, employers, who oppose certain types of birth control for moral reasons, do not currently provide coverage, but they also do not block access to birth control for their employees. They simply do not pay for it because it is against their religious beliefs.
The PPACA included a provision to mandate that insurance plans include free contraception coverage. The law also proposed to continue to allow those employers who oppose those types of birth control that cause abortions of new embryos, to continue to provide insurance to their employees, but would be exempt form providing contraception coverage. This was part of the agreement reached between pro-life Democrats and the Obama administration.
“I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for contraception,” said former Pennsylvania Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. “We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage.”
Women’s groups scored a tremendous victory with a contraception mandate that requires all health insurance companies to provide free birth control. Some groups, such as Emily’s List and NARAL, are attempting to push the mandate even further by forcing those who oppose contraception for moral reasons to include free birth control in their plans as well. They are also using scare tactics to convince their supporters that they are in jeopardy of losing coverage for birth control.
“The campaign by Emily’s list to scare women into thinking that they will no longer have access to birth control is as dishonest as the Republican campaign to convince voters that the PPACA funds abortion,” said Day. “The PPACA does not fund abortion and not one woman will lose access to birth control under the new law. In fact, women will now receive free birth control under that law.”
Millions of Americans could lose their access to employee-sponsored health care if the narrow definition were enforced. Notre Dame President, Father Jenkins, expressed concern that the mandate “would compel Notre Dame to either pay for contraception and sterilization in violation of the church's moral teaching, or to discontinue our employee and student health care plans in violation of the church's social teaching.”
“This is more about business as usual in Washington with special interest groups trying to create controversy to raise money,” said Dahlkemper. “Common sense would say health insurance, even if it does not include contraception coverage, is better than no insurance at all. If common sense prevails, the final rule will allow fair conscience protections that will not force religious institutions to choose between social teaching and moral teaching.”
#
Last Updated on Wednesday, 08 February 2012 12:29
NO TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION IN HEALTH CARE
Thursday, 18 August 2011 11:52
administrator
Democrats for Life of America
Protecting. Strengthening. Re-building.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kristen Day
(202) 220-3066
JUDGE FINDS NO TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION IN HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL
SBA List's Motion to Dismiss Denied
August 1, 2011, Washington DC - Today, Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that there was no taxpayer funding of abortion in the health care reform bill dismissing the Susan B. Anthony List's motion for summary judgment in former Congressman Steve Driehaus' defamation lawsuit against the SBA List. At issue is whether or not the SBA List's accusations against Congressman Driehaus during the 2010 Election "inflicted grievous harm to his reputation, including his character and personal integrity, subjected him to public contempt and hatred, and adversely affected him in his profession as a public servant."
"It was unfortunate that a vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was mischaracterized as a pro-abortion vote and used as a partisan tool to defeat pro-life Democrats, like Steve Dreihaus." said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America. "The ruling will not correct the injustices done to good Members, like Steve, but it also vindicates the other pro-life Members who were also unjustly targeted, including Sen. Bob Casey (PA), Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA), Rep. Jerry Costello (IL), Rep. Joe Donnelly (IN), Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN), Rep. Paul Kanjorski (PA), Rep. Dale Kildee (MI) Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV), Sen. Ben Nelson (NE), Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN), Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), Rep. Bart Stupak (MI) and Rep. Charlie Wilson (OH)."
At the heart of the debate is whether accusations by the SBA List that Congressman Driehaus voted for taxpayer funding of abortion is protected speech. The Ohio Election Commission found probable cause that the SBA List "violated two of Ohio's false statement laws". The SBA List ignored the Ohio Election Commission ruling and continued their effort to flood his district with their message. The SBA List contends that their statements, whether they are true or false, are protected speech because it was their "opinion" not "fact".
Judge Black disagreed and found that, "because each allegedly defamatory statement was expressly referred to as "a fact" or "the truth," any reasonable reader would understand that the taxpayer funded statements conveyed information of a factual nature." He pointed to several SBA List communications that reaffirmed that their accusations about taxpayer funding of abortion were facts, not merely their opinion.
The Judge further stated that "Whether it is possible, under contingent circumstances, that at some point in the future, upon the execution of x, y and z, that the PPACA would not prevent taxpayer funded abortion is entirely different from providing for "tax-payer funded abortion" The express language of the PPACA does not provide for tax-payer funding abortion. That is a fact, and it is clear on its face."
#
Last Updated on Thursday, 18 August 2011 11:58
|
