By R.T. Neary
The devil is in the details, and the devil in H.R. 3200, the Obama administration’s so-called health care reform bill, has been anesthetized, so as to appear innocuous. But this devil is also a chameleon, created in a very crafty fashion.
Anyone who has experience with negotiating labor contracts – as does the writer – is well aware that vague language or no mention of an issue ultimately leads to the need for interpretation. What is implied in the wording becomes the real focus. Its meaning is interpreted by one party’s own appointed bureaucrats, a favorable regulator or by judge-shopping within the judicial system. The tack which all of these people will take has been predetermined, so this is at the core of the administration’s modus operandi.
This bill is, in part, about putting an indelible stamp on abortion as a way of death. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are also included by implication in this “health” package; otherwise, they would have been explicitly excluded. The true test of the Obama administration’s intent lies in the wording. The gaggle of attorneys surrounding President Barack Obama are well aware of how to write clear-cut language that would allow no “wiggle room” and would convey sincerity. Likewise, along party lines and with his support, the Democrats have steadfastly voted down amendments that would protect the right to life of innocent human beings across the entire life spectrum. The intent of Obama and his supporters has been made crystal clear.
In stark contrast, as a presidential candidate, Obama did use very clear language in his promises to the abortion industry. He said he would sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act and support abortion in every instance, including partial-birth abortion. He deemed clarity to be essential then. But now he is resorting to self-righteous verbal tap dancing while charging at town-hall meetings that his opponents are trying “to scare and mislead the public.” Who is trying to mislead whom?
Fresh from being honored by this country’s best-known “Catholic” university, the president has informed the leading abortion providers that, in view of the heat generated by Catholic opponents to his award from Notre Dame, he will forego a heads-on approach to FOCA. Why not? The same end can now be attained incrementally through passage of this health care “reform” legislation.
Although he was careful to not select a single individual with a pro-life background for a high-level position, he has nominated many who profess to be Catholic. This was part of the design. It provides cover in the shell game being played to convert this massive health care package into law and codify abortion on demand by an indirect route.
As part of its push, the administration has loosened the purse strings to fund organizations such as Catholic Charities and other front groups featuring “Catholic” in their name or whose name clearly implies a Catholic identity. They willingly respond by acting as salespeople trumpeting the need for passing the entire package, using moral arguments weighing heavily in favor of obtaining coverage for the millions now uninsured. The pitch is always cloaked in Christian-sounding generalities, rather than specifics. At first blush, it sounds compassionate, but it withers away quickly when challenged on substance. All of it is leftist demagoguery repackaged.
Though he was too ill to attend his sister Eunice’s funeral, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy was nonetheless exploited (apparently with family approval) to promote what is essentially a power grab. Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy apparently did not focus on ensuring that the health care overhaul would respect the right to life of all human beings, from creation to death – as he should have done in his waning days, in reparation for his many years of abortion advocacy.
Instead, the proposal is fraught with unanswered questions about the motives behind it – and its ultimate consequences. What a sad scenario! I contacted Senator Kennedy’s Washington office to propose the following wording in the Senate version: “The intent of this legislation is to promote the health of all human beings. Nothing in the wording shall be construed to include counseling for or the funding of abortion, euthanasia or assisted suicide.”
If this 1,100-plus-page document – or even one with only 600 words – is passed, Obama’s advisors and bureaucrats will start chipping away to undermine and ultimately destroy conscience clauses as well as parental consent requirements, waiting periods and every other restriction on the destruction of life in utero.
Obama is clearly feticidal – and infanticidal as well. He proved it as the Illinois state senator who voted three times to deny medical care to a child born alive as a result of a failed attempt to abort him or her. And Obama expressly voiced the belief that a Supreme Court opinion cut out of whole cloth in 1973 took precedence over any right to life one could claim for a defenseless human being in need of medical care – if the intent was to legally end the life of that human being.
Abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not health care. Each stops a beating human heart permanently. Health care is designed to keep that heart beating until it ceases to function on its own. We now have the hearts of over a million humans stopped legally each year. That figure would grow drastically under Obamacare. Yes, where this man wants to take the country is a very scary place.
The primary issue in the entire health care debate is not whether some reform is needed; it is how we should approach the issue – through a blanket overhaul or by breaking down the effort into its component parts and addressing them individually? Moreover, if explicitly worded exclusions for abortion, assisted suicide or euthanasia counseling and/or funding are not added to the legislation, any deal must be broken before it moves to a conference committee – on which the administration is heavily relying to accomplish its goals.
The president of the United States has an atrocious record of disregard for preborn babies’ human dignity and right to life, which logically leads to the conclusion that he harbors the same attitude toward the defenseless elderly and infirm.
Obama must be held to a moral standard far superior to that which he has thus far displayed toward life-and-death matters. He is showing all his cards in H.R. 3200 and gives us no alternative but to vigorously oppose this bill and defeat it. Our efforts cannot be relaxed until this is accomplished.
R.T. Neary writes from Medfield, Massachusetts, and is the director of Pro-Life Massachusetts, an American Life League Associate group.
