Must Read: Rep. Steve O'Ban's Floor Speech on HB 1044

Right not to be Coerced to Take Human Life

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about one’s views on regulating abortion or a women’s right to choose. This bill is about the value we place on the freedom of conscience. This bill is a test of all of us in this chamber. Do we nurture and celebrate people who follow their conscience? Or, do we burden and undermine conscience? And not just any issue of conscience is at stake.

This bill would force Americans to violate conscience on the most profound moral issue imaginable. This bill would force Americans to assist in taking what they believe to be innocent human life. Since the Quakers in colonial America were jailed for refusing to serve in colonial militias, our nation has affirmed the right of conscience. Their refusal to take life changed colonial laws and in every armed conflict since, Americans have been exempted for conscience sake. Our laws have responded to protect conscience, again and again.

• Within weeks of Roe v Wade in 1973, every state and the federal gov’t enacted exemptions so doctors would not be forced to take human life.
• Our state’s physician-assisted suicide laws, exempt physicians from being coerced to take human life. 
•  Our state corrections employees are excused from participating in state executions.

And yet, not since the Quakers were jailed in colonial America, would a law punish Americans who refuse to take human life, until HB 1044. No other state, no other gov’t has broken with the long tradition of our nation protecting conscience in this way, until HB 1044.

Well, We Finally Did It

We found somewhere in Washington State law which recognizes the unborn child as a separate and unique person under the law.

As most people know, in America if you are poor and need medical attention, you can apply for the Medicaid program. It turns out that the government not only uses your income to determine if you qualify for the benefits, but also your family size. That makes sense: the same amount of income spread over more children means less money per child.

For example, Washington State's Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has an online questionnaire here where you can fill out your info and it will tell you if you qualify. Question 2 is about family size, specifically "how many children live with you?". The comments add: "If you are pregnant, please include that unborn child." (emphasis ours)

Seattle Archdiocese to Host Pro-Abortion Rep. Jay Inslee at Cathedral; Abortion and Euthanasia Center Representative also to Speak

Updated: 4:54 Nov. 10 --
Received notice at about 3:30 today from the Archdiocese of Seattle that the "Morality of Health Care Reform" discussion has BEEN MOVED to Seattle University. Yipee! It's still too bad that our Catholic schools feel compelled to host this kind of thing but at least they won't be defiling the Cathedral.

-----

If you haven't heard by now, St. James Cathedral has decided to host the strangely titled forum, "The Morality of Health Care Reform: The debate's missing link".

Pro-abortion legislator Jay Inslee is one of the invited speakers. He was demoted from "keynote" speaker status to panelist late last week. Laura Rehrmann, president of the Group Health Foundation and "in-charge of patient care" at Group Health Cooperative will also be on the panel. Group Health has a reputation as an abortion center and will allow doctors to assist with suicides at their "health" centers after the passage of I-1000. Ms. Rehrmann is a parishioner at St. James Cathedral.

Why is the Cathedral allowing this event to take place?

Pro-Life Action Item

Health care reform IS About saving lives NOT destroying them.

On Saturday evening, Nov. 7 the congress of the U.S. approved the Stupak-Pitt amendment to HB 3962 by a vote of 240-194. This amendment, a pro life Statement true and true said to government “remove abortion funding and mandates from health care reform” period.
Jay Inslee voted against this Amendment, in other words, support abortion at any cost, regardless of the consequences on the mothers and their preborn babies!

Jay Inslee Continues to Lie about Abortion Funding in Health Care Bills

The following letter was sent to a constituent of Rep. Jay Inslee (D) of Washington's 1st congressional district in response to a request to stop goverment funded child killing in the health care proposals before Congress.

Rep. Inslee and his wife are rabid and enthusiastic supporters of abortion. He has a 100% pro-abortion voing score from NARAL, he was honred this year's "Power of Choice" luncheon, and has basically never met an abortion he didn't like.

His wife Trudi Inslee is a volunteer and board member for NARAL Washington. It seems as though she can't do enough to promote abortion.

Here it is--

September 23, 2009

Dear:

Thank you for contacting me to express you concerns regarding H.R. 3200 and the use of taxpayer funds for controversial medical procedures, specifically under the public health insurance option. I appreciate hearing from you.

You may be interested to know that, with my support, an amendment to H.R. 3200 was passed during the Energy and Commerce Committee markup of the bill that would prohibit the availability of public funds for elective abortions within the proposed public health insurance option. According to the Congressional Research Service, under this amendment, introduced by Rep. Capps, enrollees in the proposed public option would be required to pay for such reproductive health services with private funds, specifically those collected as premiums from the patient. Additionally, the affordability credits offered under the plan, granted to those who qualify based on a low household income, could not be used to pay for abortion services. This amendment also impacts the Health Insurance Exchanges established by H.R. 3200, through which individuals could purchase their own health care. , the qualified health benefits plans offered through an exchange would be required to provide certain basic services, of which abortion is not included. Under the Capps Amendment, each exchange would be required to include one plan that does not provide coverage of elective abortions.

There are strong beliefs on both sides of the abortion debate that deserve respect. As you know, however, the United States Supreme Court determined in 1973 with Roe v. Wade that a woman's right of choice is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that this decision should be left up to the judgment of a woman in consultation with her doctor, her family, her conscience and her religious beliefs. I believe that the Roe v. Wade decision must be preserved and respected. As Congress moves to reform the health care system in the country, I believe it is important that the choices that are currently available to women not be eliminated. Women can currently select insurance plans that provide for the coverage of abortion, and maintaining this choice as a result of reform should not be equated to government funding of abortion services.

As you know, since the Roe v. Wade decision Congress has attached provisions to federal funding bills for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, known as the Hyde Amendment, to prohibit federal funding from paying for abortions. The first such amendment was attached to the FY1977 Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriation Act, with the intent of restricting the use of appropriated funds to pay for abortion through the Medicaid program. In the context of the ongoing health care reform debate, I would like you to know that the restrictions put in place by the Hyde amendment will apply to any expansion of existing health care programs, such as Medicaid.

Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. Because security measures in the House cause delays in receiving postal mail, I encourage you to contact me by telephone, by fax, or through my website at http://www.house.gov/inslee/contact. For more information on my activities in Congress, and for information on services that my office can provide, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/inslee/. If you would like to subscribe to my email updates, please visit http://www.house.gov/inslee/signup.htm.


Very truly yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress



****************************************************************
DISCLAIMER I cannot guarantee the integrity of the text of this letter if it was not sent to you directly from my Congressional Email Account: wa01ima@mail.house.gov. If you have any questions about the validity of this message, please email me at: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov or call my Washington, DC office at: 202-225-6311. If you would like to be removed from my email update list, please email me your name and address at: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov and type "REMOVE" in the subject line.

Rep. Inslee already tried these lines on AIW a few weeks ago.

However, he did get one thing right--the Disclaimer: Jay Inslee cannot guarantee the integrity of this letter.

Do ya really think Jay Inslee would support a health care bill that didn't include government funded abortion?

Please can we get this man thrown out of office at the next election?

Is Rep. Jay Inslee Lying to Constituents about Abortion in Health Care Reform?

The issue of Inside the Beltway politicians lying about the contents of the Democrats' controversial health care reform bill is in the news lately. It seems Washington Rep. Jay Inslee may be trying to get in on this action.

If you send Mr. Inslee a letter objecting to the well-documented fact that the health care reform proposals being considered in Washington would result in a massive increase in taxpayer funding of abortion, and thus a massive increase in abortions, you'll get a letter back assuring you that this is not the case.

In one letter from Mr. Inslee's office which we received, he assured us that the Hyde Amendment would prevent this from happening.

The fact is, however, that the Hyde Amendment does not provide a blanket ban on federal money going to abortion, but rather specifically applies to Medicaid and only Medicaid. The so-called public option health care plan that would come into effect under Obamacare is nothing to do with Medicaid. Thus Mr. Inslee is either completely uninformed -- which would be shockingly negligent on his part -- or is deliberately misleading constituents.

Moreover, Mr. Inslee sits on the House Energy & Commerce (HEC) Committee, which was considering the health care reform bill and passed it out of committee. Mr. Inslee voted no less than three times against amendments that would specifically have prevented the bill from including abortions as an insured health care service.

All of this is unsurprising when you consider Mr. Inslee's 100% rating from the abortion lobby, and the fact that his wife, Trudi, is on the board of Washington State's chapter of National Abortion Rights Action League.

We have contacted Mr. Inslee's office on two occasions by phone to find out why he is misleading constituents. The lady who answered the phone assured us that his office would never deliberately mislead a constituent, but she promised a response within a few days. With no response forthcoming, we called again. Same assurances, same result.

The fact is Mr. Inslee knows full well that the health care reform bill he supports would fund abortions, and would lead to tens or hundreds of thousands of extra dead babies each year, and huge increases in the standard of living of his abortion industry patrons.

If people don't feel bad about killing babies, why would they feel bad about lying about it?