PoliticsRead Next
Abortion Pill
'Abortomat': Activists create anonymous abortion pill lockers in Poland
Bridget Sielicki
·Spotlight Articles
Pro-abortion lawmakers want federal abortion 'right' within first 100 hours of next Congress
The 120th Congress will convene on January 3, and pro-abortion House members have already decided what their agenda should be: abortion on demand.
A memo spells out what Democratic lawmakers want to accomplish in the first 100 hours, first 100 days, and first year — and one of their key goals is to make abortion a federally protected 'right.'
The Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group sent a memo to Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries urging the expansion of abortion — with no limits — within the first 100 hours of the 120th Congress convening on January 3 if Democrats take control of the House.
The memo includes the push for H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, which would allow abortion to be treated as as a form of health care so that women can participate in the economy.
It also includes H.R. 4611, The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, which would force taxpayers to fund abortions. It specifically targets Black and Native children for abortion.
The memo makes it clear that pro-abortion legislators will not rest until abortion is available for any reason at any time and on the taxpayers' dime.
According to the National Right to Life Committee, the Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group (headed by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Terri Sewell) Memo sent to Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in part, "... Republican attacks on reproductive rights have made contraception and essential reproductive care harder and more expensive to access."
Pro-abortion legislators claim that the U.S. must "[r]estore reproductive freedom nationwide, [r]eestablish a federal right to abortion care and end restrictions that prevent people covered through federal health programs from receiving abortion coverage.”
The key bills they hope to quickly push through regarding abortion are H.R. 12 (the Women's Health Protection Act) and H.R. 4611 (the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance/EACH Act).
According to The Hill, Jeffries recently stated that "House Democrats are poised to take back the majority" in the House after the November elections.
The Women's Health Protection Act carries several purposes that add up to abortion on demand, and pro-abortion lawmakers want it passed in the first 100 hours. These purposes include:
Treat abortion the same as 'medically comparable procedures.' "[P]ermit people to seek and obtain abortion services, and ... permit health care providers to provide abortion services, without harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements that ... single out the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures; ... do not... significantly advance reproductive health... or... make abortion services more difficult to access" (emphasis added).
There is no procedure that is "medically comparable" to abortion, because induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being. Medicine is meant to heal, but the goal of every induced abortion is a dead human being. In addition, abortion facilities are often unregulated and not required to report complications.
Protect women's equal participation in the economy. The bill also aims "[t]o promote access to abortion services and thereby protect women's ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States."
This idea that abortion is necessary for the economy forgets that the 63 million babies killed by abortion in the U.S. would have grown up to contribute to that economy.
It is entirely unnecessary for women to kill their own children (born or preborn) to "participate equally in the economic and social life" of the nation. It's insulting and sexist to claim women must be allowed to kill their children to be equal participants in the economy with men.
Mothers are capable of having successful careers, but it's also completely acceptable for them to stay home full time with their children. Women should not have to abort their babies for the sake of their careers.
In addition, Roe v. Wade is not what gave women a spot in the workforce or their right to vote. Dedicated women fought against sexual discrimination in the workplace, fought to open higher up positions for women, and fought for access to higher education. It was during and after World War II that women entered the workforce in record numbers, decades prior to Roe v. Wade.
Statistics show that a huge proportion of these women were mothers, and the U.S. Labor Department identifies World War II as the turning point for women’s increased employment outside the home.
"[P]rotect people's ability to make decisions about their bodies, medical care, family, and life's course." Bodily autonomy and control are two of the main talking points of the pro-abortion mindset and H.R. 12 latches right on. One of its goals is to ensure that preborn human beings are killed under the guise of bodily autonomy and health care.
No one has the right to kill an innocent human being. Killing is not health care, family members are not disposable because they are 'inconvenient,' and children are not obstacles to a life well lived.
"[E]liminate unwarranted burdens on commerce and the right to travel." The bill admits "there is an interstate market for abortion services..." Abortion is a money-making endeavor. Under the act, women would have the "right" to abortion prior to the undefined and highly subjective point of 'viability' without limitation or requirement. This means under H.R. 12, no state would be allowed to restrict abortion prior to this subjective time (which is often left to be determined by the abortionist).
But killing innocent human beings should not be a money-making opportunity. People who make money from the deaths of human beings cannot be trusted to speak the truth about it, especially not when a profit motive is involved.
This bill would ensure that anyone using a federally-sponsored health care plan such as Medicaid or VA insurance, and who is under federal employment, would pay nothing for an abortion. It would end the Hyde Amendment, which has been in place for 50 years, to protect taxpayer money from being spent on abortions. Pro-abortion legislators want this bill passed in the first 100 hours.
H.R. 4611 states:
All people should have access to abortion services regardless of actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, language, ancestry, citizenship, immigration status, sex (including a sex stereotype; pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; sexual orientation or gender identity; and sex characteristics), age, disability, or sex work status or behavior.
It also says that a "person's income level, wealth, or type of insurance should not prevent them from having access to a full range of pregnancy-related health care, including abortion services."
This is a direct attack on children already at risk of abortion because their mother is in the military or is underprivileged. If a woman who is already facing an unplanned pregnancy is told that an abortion will be "free" but is told nothing of the support available to her as a mother, she is likely to feel as if abortion is her only option.
In fact, H.R. 4611 states plainly, that "[m]ore than 40 percent of youth and children under age 19 and 12 percent of young people aged 19 to 25 get their health insurance through government programs" and "Women of color are more likely to be insured by the Medicaid program." It also notes that 25% of "non-elderly American Indians and Alaska Native (AIAN) women" use Medicaid.
This is the direct targeting of Black and Native babies for abortion as well as the babies conceived by teens or young women.
It also claims that since Roe was overturned, "19 states" have enacted laws to protect preborn children "at an arbitrary point in pregnancy."
The existence of a new human life or the start of the new human's heartbeat are not arbitrary points, but this is the basis of the pro-abortion argument that there should be no gestational limits on abortion.
This makes it obvious that they don't believe a human being in the womb should have any rights, even the right not be killed, at any point up until birth. And unfortunately, in the Netherlands, the right to not be killed has been taken from born children as well.
Abortion is not health care. Its goal is to kill not heal. Human life does not begin at birth, it begins at fertilization and no child should be killed because their mother faces discrimination in the form of ageism, racism, or economic discrimination.
Women shouldn't be told they have to sacrifice their children's lives in the name of finances. Families should receive financial assistance and support to help them rise up. The dollars that would be spent to kill should instead be spent to care and assist.
The push to pass these bills within 100 days of January 3 makes it clear that pro-abortion legislators will stop at nothing to ensure every preborn child is targeted for abortion, specifically those they consider less valuable than others.
All children in the womb has an equal right to life and protection regardless of who their parents are.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bridget Sielicki
·
Politics
Right to Life UK
·
Politics
Nancy Flanders
·
Politics
Sheena Rodriguez
·
Guest Column
Rep. Chris Smith
·
Politics
Cassy Cooke
·
International
Nancy Flanders
·
Issues
Nancy Flanders
·Politics
Nancy Flanders
·
International
Nancy Flanders
·
Pop Culture
Nancy Flanders
·Pro-abortion lawmakers want federal abortion 'right' within first 100 hours of next Congress
The 120th Congress will convene on January 3, and pro-abortion House members have already decided what their agenda should be: abortion on demand.
A memo spells out what Democratic lawmakers want to accomplish in the first 100 hours, first 100 days, and first year — and one of their key goals is to make abortion a federally protected 'right.'
The Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group sent a memo to Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries urging the expansion of abortion — with no limits — within the first 100 hours of the 120th Congress convening on January 3 if Democrats take control of the House.
The memo includes the push for H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, which would allow abortion to be treated as as a form of health care so that women can participate in the economy.
It also includes H.R. 4611, The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, which would force taxpayers to fund abortions. It specifically targets Black and Native children for abortion.
The memo makes it clear that pro-abortion legislators will not rest until abortion is available for any reason at any time and on the taxpayers' dime.
According to the National Right to Life Committee, the Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group (headed by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Terri Sewell) Memo sent to Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in part, "... Republican attacks on reproductive rights have made contraception and essential reproductive care harder and more expensive to access."
Pro-abortion legislators claim that the U.S. must "[r]estore reproductive freedom nationwide, [r]eestablish a federal right to abortion care and end restrictions that prevent people covered through federal health programs from receiving abortion coverage.”
The key bills they hope to quickly push through regarding abortion are H.R. 12 (the Women's Health Protection Act) and H.R. 4611 (the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance/EACH Act).
According to The Hill, Jeffries recently stated that "House Democrats are poised to take back the majority" in the House after the November elections.
The Women's Health Protection Act carries several purposes that add up to abortion on demand, and pro-abortion lawmakers want it passed in the first 100 hours. These purposes include:
Treat abortion the same as 'medically comparable procedures.' "[P]ermit people to seek and obtain abortion services, and ... permit health care providers to provide abortion services, without harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements that ... single out the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures; ... do not... significantly advance reproductive health... or... make abortion services more difficult to access" (emphasis added).
There is no procedure that is "medically comparable" to abortion, because induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being. Medicine is meant to heal, but the goal of every induced abortion is a dead human being. In addition, abortion facilities are often unregulated and not required to report complications.
Protect women's equal participation in the economy. The bill also aims "[t]o promote access to abortion services and thereby protect women's ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States."
This idea that abortion is necessary for the economy forgets that the 63 million babies killed by abortion in the U.S. would have grown up to contribute to that economy.
It is entirely unnecessary for women to kill their own children (born or preborn) to "participate equally in the economic and social life" of the nation. It's insulting and sexist to claim women must be allowed to kill their children to be equal participants in the economy with men.
Mothers are capable of having successful careers, but it's also completely acceptable for them to stay home full time with their children. Women should not have to abort their babies for the sake of their careers.
In addition, Roe v. Wade is not what gave women a spot in the workforce or their right to vote. Dedicated women fought against sexual discrimination in the workplace, fought to open higher up positions for women, and fought for access to higher education. It was during and after World War II that women entered the workforce in record numbers, decades prior to Roe v. Wade.
Statistics show that a huge proportion of these women were mothers, and the U.S. Labor Department identifies World War II as the turning point for women’s increased employment outside the home.
"[P]rotect people's ability to make decisions about their bodies, medical care, family, and life's course." Bodily autonomy and control are two of the main talking points of the pro-abortion mindset and H.R. 12 latches right on. One of its goals is to ensure that preborn human beings are killed under the guise of bodily autonomy and health care.
No one has the right to kill an innocent human being. Killing is not health care, family members are not disposable because they are 'inconvenient,' and children are not obstacles to a life well lived.
"[E]liminate unwarranted burdens on commerce and the right to travel." The bill admits "there is an interstate market for abortion services..." Abortion is a money-making endeavor. Under the act, women would have the "right" to abortion prior to the undefined and highly subjective point of 'viability' without limitation or requirement. This means under H.R. 12, no state would be allowed to restrict abortion prior to this subjective time (which is often left to be determined by the abortionist).
But killing innocent human beings should not be a money-making opportunity. People who make money from the deaths of human beings cannot be trusted to speak the truth about it, especially not when a profit motive is involved.
This bill would ensure that anyone using a federally-sponsored health care plan such as Medicaid or VA insurance, and who is under federal employment, would pay nothing for an abortion. It would end the Hyde Amendment, which has been in place for 50 years, to protect taxpayer money from being spent on abortions. Pro-abortion legislators want this bill passed in the first 100 hours.
H.R. 4611 states:
All people should have access to abortion services regardless of actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, language, ancestry, citizenship, immigration status, sex (including a sex stereotype; pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; sexual orientation or gender identity; and sex characteristics), age, disability, or sex work status or behavior.
It also says that a "person's income level, wealth, or type of insurance should not prevent them from having access to a full range of pregnancy-related health care, including abortion services."
This is a direct attack on children already at risk of abortion because their mother is in the military or is underprivileged. If a woman who is already facing an unplanned pregnancy is told that an abortion will be "free" but is told nothing of the support available to her as a mother, she is likely to feel as if abortion is her only option.
In fact, H.R. 4611 states plainly, that "[m]ore than 40 percent of youth and children under age 19 and 12 percent of young people aged 19 to 25 get their health insurance through government programs" and "Women of color are more likely to be insured by the Medicaid program." It also notes that 25% of "non-elderly American Indians and Alaska Native (AIAN) women" use Medicaid.
This is the direct targeting of Black and Native babies for abortion as well as the babies conceived by teens or young women.
It also claims that since Roe was overturned, "19 states" have enacted laws to protect preborn children "at an arbitrary point in pregnancy."
The existence of a new human life or the start of the new human's heartbeat are not arbitrary points, but this is the basis of the pro-abortion argument that there should be no gestational limits on abortion.
This makes it obvious that they don't believe a human being in the womb should have any rights, even the right not be killed, at any point up until birth. And unfortunately, in the Netherlands, the right to not be killed has been taken from born children as well.
Abortion is not health care. Its goal is to kill not heal. Human life does not begin at birth, it begins at fertilization and no child should be killed because their mother faces discrimination in the form of ageism, racism, or economic discrimination.
Women shouldn't be told they have to sacrifice their children's lives in the name of finances. Families should receive financial assistance and support to help them rise up. The dollars that would be spent to kill should instead be spent to care and assist.
The push to pass these bills within 100 days of January 3 makes it clear that pro-abortion legislators will stop at nothing to ensure every preborn child is targeted for abortion, specifically those they consider less valuable than others.
All children in the womb has an equal right to life and protection regardless of who their parents are.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bridget Sielicki
·Politics
Right to Life UK
·Politics
Nancy Flanders
·Politics
Sheena Rodriguez
·Guest Column
Rep. Chris Smith
·Politics
Cassy Cooke
·International
Nancy Flanders
·Issues
Nancy Flanders
·Politics
Nancy Flanders
·International
Nancy Flanders
·Pop Culture
Nancy Flanders
·