Further Reflections on the Protect Life Act

By Dave Andrusko

We’ve written a number of articles about House passage of the Protect Life Act, an important first step in applying longstanding federal policies on abortion funding and conscience rights on abortion to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) passed in 2010. You’d expect pro-abortionists to squawk—they want money flowing unclogged through the federal pipeline and couldn’t care less about anyone’s conscience rights.

At some level I know it’s nothing more than a political ploy, pretending (to quote House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi) that “When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor of health care providers.” But when you read pro-abortion bloggers, like Amanda Marcotte, you begin to realize that unless they can persuade themselves that this nonsense is actually true, their whole understanding of who we are and what we are about falls apart. And by extension, who they are and what they do!

Just to take one of her columns, titled “Anti-Choicers Longing for the Scarlet Letter ‘A.’” Like so many of her colleagues, the foundation on which she establishes her identity is that your and my real agenda is plastering that Scarlett Letter on women. In her typically generous manner, she describes us as “anti-sex misogynist obsessives.”

Not that she has any proof; she just reasons that if we don’t approve of her agenda, that by definition means we don’t care about unborn children or women, and therefore are not authentically “pro-life.”

But I suspect that’s not persuasive, even to her. That’s where Pelosi’s outrageously unhinged charge comes in. If we really don’t’ care a twit, it’s proof-positive to the Marcottes of this world that “those sacrificed by deliberate neglect are more the 21st century version of scapegoats: those who pay with their lives for the supposed sins of us all.”

Just to go back for a second, we’ve already thrice explained that the Protect Life Act [H.R. 358 ] will not allow hospitals to deny women “emergency” abortions. As NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson has explained, “In reality, the bill does not change the longstanding federal law in question, called EMTALA, which requires that in an ‘emergency’ a hospital must do its best to stabilize both the pregnant mother and her ‘unborn child’ (which is the term used in the statute).  The Protect Life Act allows federal funding of an abortion required to save a mother’s life.”

Moreover, as pro-life Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) explained , “Conscience clauses and EMTALA have coexisted for many years without a problem.” A problem developed with the inclusion of what Congressman Smith describes as “a little known provision” in ObamaCare that threatened the consciences of pro-life health providers—a “devastating loophole”– that H.R. 358 is intended to correct.

In other words, ObamaCare comes along and upsets the status quo, but if pro-lifers attempt to restore what had existed, pro-abortionists say we will allow (Marcotte comes close to saying we’d prefer) women to “die on the floor of health care providers.” Truth, accuracy, fairness—none of this matters to the defenders of abortion.

But what else is new?

Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha