Politics

Lila Rose, Tony Perkins, Father Pavone, and more pro-life leaders respond to Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling!

The nation is strongly reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Among the loudest voices are the pro-life leaders and politicians who know this decision can lead to a great increase in taxpayer-funded abortions. While many are celebrating this ruling as a great victory, pro-lifers are greatly disturbed by the decision.

Lila Rose released this message on her Public Facebook page:

The Supreme Court has upheld both Obamacare and the HHS mandate, forcing Americans to pay for the expansion of the abortion industry and untold deaths of pre-born children. The youth of America will not stand for this—and this historic election, we will vote for liberty and life.

Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, sent out a letter sharing some of his thoughts:

The Supreme Court today officially declared that our current government pays no heed to the Constitution. Neither the President, nor Congress, nor the Supreme Court appears willing to protect life or liberty. If ever there were a time in history when the American people needed to be informed voters on Election Day, this is it.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, released this YouTube video as a response to the health care law. Here are some powerful comments from the video:

Contained in this law are the seeds of radical social policy that will forever change the moral and social landscape of America.

This ruling hurts American families.

Today the American dream, gave way to a real American nightmare.

Republican leader Rick Santorum commented on the ruling:

Today’s outcome is the worst of all scenarios. Not only are our rights being taken away and Americans are being forced to do something we don’t want to do, but now we are being burdened with the biggest permanent tax increase in our nation’s history. This is a sad day.

Walter Hoye, president of the Issues4Life Foundation, shared a powerful quote from Frederick Douglas on his Facebook page:

Pastors: The Supreme Court has ruled that taxpayer-funded abortions at every corner is indeed and in fact constitutional. “Nevertheless, this is no time for the friends of freedom to fold their arms and consider their work at an end. The price for liberty is eternal vigilance.” – Frederick Douglass, (1862).

Hoye goes onto say: “In the words of St. Gaspar del Bufalo, founder of his order, the Society of Precious Blood when asked by his prefect to do the politically expedient, but morally wrong, Gaspar replied … I cannot! I must not! I will not!”

Ryan Scott Bomberger, leader of the Radiance Foundation and creator of the toomanyaborted.com billboards, remarked:

Obamacare is now simply a new tax? Let’s remember how SUPREMELY wrong the Supreme Court has been: Dred Scott (blacks are not people), Plessy vs. Ferguson (allowing ‘Separate but Equal’), Minor vs. Happersett (barring women from voting). Thankfully, the Supreme Court DOESN’T have the final say. Repeal Baby. Repeal.

Kelly Clinger, pro-life activist and speaker for Operation Outcry Silent No More, said: “Another widespread death decree was just accepted in America. A victory for Obama means a defeat for unborn children. Have mercy, God.”

She also responded with “If this doesn’t wake up the sleeping giant, namely the CHURCH…we must side with LIFE at any cost!!”

Stephen Broden, an African-American pro-life pastor, said: “Two things are apparent in Roberts’s abandonment of the constitution. 1. Roberts believes that congress has a right to tax us out of our liberties, and 2. Liberal justices never abandon their position only so-called conservatives. It’s always a conservative that throws conservatism under the bus.”

The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the truth through strategy, training, funding and direct litigation. They released this comment:

ObamaCare treats American citizens like subjects. This administration has used health care law to become a dictator of conscience. The court’s decision is alarming and deeply wrong. ObamaCare holds your health care hostage and offers no real choice. Either comply and abandon your religious freedom and conscience, or resist and be fined for your faith. All current ADF legal challenges to the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate will proceed, and we are confident that the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional.

It seems like everyone has an opinion on the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling. You’ve heard the voices of pro-life leaders across our country. What are your thoughts?

Live Action on Facebook

  • Pingback: Lila Rose, Tony Perkins, Father Pavone and more Pro-life Leaders Respond to Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling! | Live Action News & Opinion | A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • Gordon Duffy

    Abortions *should* be taxpayer funded. Unfortunately you are just scaremongering. I wish that you were right and there’d been a sweeping change in how the US works. 

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Okay, so explain to me what entitles you to take my money without my consent for an abortion.

  • BryonyVaughn

    My thoughts?

    I think these pro-life leaders are deceiving their followers to their own political ends.  ACA does not make for tax-payer funded abortions.  I wish the leaders would own up to why they’re opposing it so vehemently.  We need honest discussion to have a chance of coming to a satisfactory policy.  

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Fungibility and the First Amendment. Look ‘em up.

      • BryonyVaughn

         I understand your words but you’ll need to explain your point for me to understand you. 

        As the Hyde Amendment applies to the ACA are you referencing abortions that are medically necessary to save the life of the mother?  Are you claiming contraception is abortion?  Please explain yourself.

        What’s your point with the First Amendment?  I agree deception is included in free speech but I assume that’s not your point.  Are you claiming the ACA prohibits you from exercising your religion?  That would be a stretch considering tax protestors from historic peace churches are fined and sent to prison for refusing to pay the portion of their income taxes which support the war.  Tax protestors opposing the portion of their fine that might go toward contraception will be treated better as it would be pennies and the ACA explicitly disallows the taking of property to pay the tax.  I don’t see how your gripe could be about freedom of the press (unless you’re claiming I’m the government and have taken down this webpage) or freedom of assembly.  The government’s already been petitioned for redress of grievances (i.e. this case went all the way to the Supreme Court) so I’m completely stumped.  Please clarify.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1737770702 Katherine Stimpson

          Basically, the main problem that pro-lifers have with Obamacare is the part about religeous insurances having to cover contraception. There are two kinds of contraception, one that prevents you from ovulating and therefore preventing conception, and one that prevents implatation after conception. The first kind is fine, but the second one denies a baby the chance to live. The healthcare mandate would require even religeous insurers to cover both, not just the first kind.
          His point about the first amendment is that the government cannot force you to do something that goes against your religeon. The main issue here is that Catholics don’t believe in any contraception, yet Catholic insurers will still be forced to cover it under the mandate.

          And Calvin, I know this is an issue that you’re passionate about, but it doesn’t help change anyone’s mind if you call them “nutty” and imply that they’re stupid. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Thanks, Katherine, but I assure you there’s a history behind the commentary of who I was responding to that more than justified my response. And actually, I believe the honey approach is substantially overrated in modern society. Besides, “nutty” is awfully tame.

          • BryonyVaughn

             Thank you for your thoughtful response, Katherine.  I was frustrated by what felt more like hit and run point scoring than enlightening conversation.

            I understand your point about the contraception requirement.  My understanding is the HHS mandate compromise doesn’t apply to churches but only things like Catholic universities, hospitals, etc. That really doesn’t bother me that much for a few reasons. 
            * The institutions that refuse to pay for contraception coverage actually have to PAY MORE for their policies as policies with contraception coverage result in lower payouts than those without.  If they the institutions want to go the more expensive route (IIRC about 400/year) they can and those employees who want to access services can still have them accessed without institution money involved. 
            * It’s common for very little money in these institutions to come from the actual church or donations.  A few days ago I did the numbers on the merger between Holy Redeemer Health System & Abington Health in PA.  HRHS got 1% of their income from donations (cash and in kind) with the rest being from paying patients, Medicaid, and private insurance.  Now that 1% isn’t solely donations from the Catholic church or Catholic people donated but all donations combined.  After the merger the about 0.3% of the budget would be from donations to HRHS and yet they still eliminate non-abortifacient sterilizations for the hospital and all hospital owned practices.  My neighbor heads up all the charitable institutions for the diocese (includes food & clothing banks, counseling services, medical clinic, refugee services, foster care program, etc) and the diocese contribute less than 3% of the income (mostly from original endowment) with the rest coming primarily from the government in the form of block grants and fee for service contracts.  With the government providing over 90% of the income and the endowment and donations less than 3%, it doesn’t seem so right to me that they would balk at the HHS mandate compromise.  I think if they take the government money they should play by the government rules and recognize they ARE being given deference for their religious nature. 

            The constitution does not say people can’t be forced to do something against their religion.  If that were the case Quaker tax resisters protesting war spending wouldn’t have their assets seized and wouldn’t be imprisoned.  The constitution says government can’t establish or fund religion or prefer one religion to another or no religion. 

            Welcome to the compromised moral system the rest of us have been living in for years.  My taxes fund war, empire, unsustainable food and energy systems and it offends me.  All I’ve been able to do is voice my opinion to my legislators and public officials, and try to build a better life and community independent of government.

          • peach

              Oh yeah, Calvin and I go way back. I point out flaws in his arguments, he calls me stupid.
            Calvin’s going with “you catch more flies with manure than you do with
            honey” (he acts like a shit).
            And if the contraception you’re referring
            to is Plan B, it doesn’t prevent implantation. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

  • peach

    You’re so focused on abortions you’re blinded to everything else. Maybe you’ll save a handful of fetuses (though I doubt it), but sooo many more will die from heart disease, diabetes, cancer and many other health issues because they can’t afford primary prevention measures and treatments. Don’t you care about helping people (people, not fetuses) have access to healthcare? Think of Obamacare as a way for you to help treat cancer patients.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Actually, you need to better familiarize yourself with ObamaCare. It *won’t* make American healthcare better. In fact, surveys of doctors pretty consistently find that majorities of them expect it to make the system *worse* in almost every respect:  http://usdailyreview.com/for-physicians-obamacare-a-net-negative

      • peach
      • BryonyVaughn

         Ok, I call brown sugar on your claim.  It’s not true that doctors think ACA will make the system worse in almost every respect.  You link ONE survey that is out of line with everything else I’ve seen.  Even if every other survey were skewed and the one you link is the only representative survey, it still doesn’t support your claim.  It shows 35% claiming the ACA does nothing to reform healthcare and 31% saying it  doesn’t go far enough.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        I’m not very persuaded by an internal voluntary survey, conducted online, and administered by a hospital staffing group.
        And even if one were to buy into the numbers, they’re opinions. By
        virtue of their profession, their opinion might be weighted more than
        yours or mine, but they’re still just opinions. It’s only marginally more valuable than your silly six words: “It *won’t* make American healthcare better”. Based on what evidence?

        Let’s keep in mind, the ACA was largely insurance reform, less than it was health reform.

      • peach

         Also, from the very article you linked to: “The only positive rating physicians gave the ACA was related to access.
        Fifty-four percent of respondents said the new law will increase
        patients’ access to care.” That’s a good thing, yes? And that’s really what this reform is all about.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        To my various critics:

        1.) Selectively picking one or two answers and pretending they outweigh the overall impression of the rest of them isn’t exactly a “debunking.”

        2.) Of course one survey isn’t meant to settle the whole issue. It’s merely the latest example of what numerous surveys have found, which was meant to point out the absurdity of Peach’s infantile premise: that people oppose ObamaCare because they dont’ care about helping people in need of better healthcare.

        3.) What evidence besides the judgment of doctors? Hmm, let’s see…a working knowledge of basic economics and the inherent problems with centralizing significant aspects of private decisions, the government’s own projections of its unsustainable cost, its failure record in every country and US state that’s tried something similar, the laundry list of employers big and small alike who’ve said they won’t be able to afford insurance under the new normal, and the fact that an obscenely convoluted 2,400+ page plan nobody who voted on it even read, which creates a vast number of new regulatory bodies our own government can’t even identify, cannot POSSIBLY be a net positive for our country.

        • peach

          Aaaarrrrghhhhh. This post wasn’t supposed to be for debating ObamaCare! The author of this article and the pro-life leaders she quoted don’t like it because they don’t like abortion. I said that’s a stupid reason to dislike it because healthcare has far more to do than just abortion. Maybe you have other reasons for disliking it but that’s besides the point right now. Increasing access to healthcare is a good thing. Right now, abortion is legal and is included as part of that healthcare. By all means continue to try to make abortion illegal, but in the meantime, recognize the good this reform would do for everyone else.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Wait a minute. First you attack pro-lifers for opposing ObamaCare on the basis of your claim that it’s a clear-cut good and we’re dooming people to “die from heart disease, diabetes, cancer and many other health issues” by opposing it.

            But once your premise is challenged, you turn around and claim “this post wasn’t supposed to be for debating ObamaCare”? After you made it into one?

            Wow. That’s nutty even for you, Peach.

          • peach

            You need to get laid Calvin.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            LOL.

          • MoonChild02

            The issue isn’t so much about abortion being legal as it is about religious freedom. Requiring that those under the individual mandate pay at least $1 per month to fund abortion takes away religious freedom, because many of us believe that participating in or facilitating abortion in any way, shape, or form is a mortal sin. In short, the ACA mandates us to damn ourselves.

            The ACA also forces self-insured religious institutions to fully fund medications and procedures that go against their religions. The Catholic Church does not believe in facilitating contraception, sterilization, or RU-486, but the ACA states that those must be fully covered. Meanwhile, the ACA does not provide for full coverage of diabetic medication or equipment, asthma medication, epinephrin pens, appendectomies, and other medication, equipment, and procedures for life-threatening issues.

        • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

          “Failure record in every country and US state that’s tried something similar”

          Like what countries and states, Calvin?

          Where I live in Massachusetts, reform has broad public support, we now have 95% insured rates, and the cost-curves are slowly being bent.

          The country that most closely resembles new system is Switzerland. What are the horror stories about the Swiss system? I haven’t heard any. If you’re relying on the misinformation that we’ve turned to a British system or a Danish system or even a Canadian system, you’re woefully misinformed and are unfortunately relaying that misinformation on to your readers.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            No misinformation at all; in fact, it’s ObamaCare proponents who’ve most consistently been shown to be victims and perpetrators of misinformation. I won’t pretend to be a health policy wonk, but I’m basing my statements on what I’ve read over the years in the news and from analysts I trust. Here’s one summary of state-level healthcare reform that I can recall offhand: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/10/07/obamacare-a-fail-from-sea-to-shining-sea/

            From what I understand about the Swiss system, it seems its similarities to ObamaCare, and applicability to the US, are considerably oversimplified: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            The Hot Air link you provide is a smorgasbord of state-level attempts at reform. Some were Clinton-era models that used a public option (something that didn’t survive in the final version of ACA), some were attempts at single-payer (which I assume you’re happy failed). Other examples (like Oregon) aren’t very enlightening at all. Tucked away in one of the links was this: so far, the Massachusetts reforms have proven the most successful.

            The Forbes link I’m not sure if you even read, because the author begins by delineating the differences, but ends with a note of optimism about the Swiss system:

            “Switzerland provides the contours of a bipartisan solution: one that stands a chance of gaining more than 60 votes in the Senate. Purists on either side will object, but politics is the art of the possible. It goes without saying that evolving the American health care system into the Swiss one is no small task. But Switzerland helps us visualize the direction that American reform should take, and provides a real-world example of how such reforms could work out.”

            Emphasis on “politics is the art of the possible”. The Swiss system would not be my model of choice but it is the one that could win the center. Systems to the left (Canada, Denmark, England) would not fly here. So, if you oppose the most centrist reform package available, what do you actually endorse? there’s nothing to the right of the ACA short of pure free-market solutions, which have proven no to work at all in the US., for either access or cost control.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            To suggest that the particular mechanics the Swiss system shares with ObamaCare comprise anything even close to the entirety of what’s in ObamaCare, as you do, is simply divorced from reality. (And that’s not even getting into the fact the enormous population difference, which makes Switzerland a model for state-level consideration, not federal.) That, combined with the other thread’s reminder about your ideological biases toward anti-constitutionalism, suggest to me that the usefulness of this exchange is nearing an end.

          • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

            I’ve never implied the Swiss system and the ACA were exactly the same (that’s a meaningless square you’ve asked to be circled, knowing it could never be done). What I’ve been implying is that there’s three ways, when looking at the examples available to us in the First World, to handle comprehensive health care. There’s full-on socialism (England, Denmark) where the government runs the hospitals, employs the doctors, and pays the bills. There’s a mixed approach (France, Canada) where health care delivery is in private hands but the government pays the bills. And there’s the Swiss (and now American) system where subsidies and regulations attempt to enroll everyone in predominantly private insurance, getting predominantly private health care.

            Well, there is a fourth way, and that’s leaving everything up to the vagaries of the free market. Here’s your opportunity to tell us if that is what you would prescribe for us. Because it’s no surprise you would declare the discourse “nearing an end” when you’re asked to describe what your reforms would look like. Like too many conservatives today, you feel real comfortable telling us what you’re against, but can’t tell us what you’re for.

    • Lloyd

      Pure speculation that “soooo many more will die….” if Obamacare is repealed.  Obamacare is not the endall cureall to everything, it’s not like medical treatments will cease to exist or there will be no further medical advances.  Not funding abortions will however save lives, whether you choose to refer to the innocent victims as fetuses or humans, it’s still life.  Further, given the medical links of abortion to breast cancer and other forms of cancer, there’s even more lives saved. 

      To your point re: access to healthcare, I agree wholeheartedly, the insurance industry needs a serious kick in the pants, they control way too much as far as medical costs, and to a lesser degree the medical industry does as well, especially pharmaceutical companies.  But why does this have to be forced on people?  Why does it have to include funding sin by providing for abortions, sterilzation, and contraception at the cost of religious freedom?  And finally, how does providing abortions prevent cancer, heart disease, and cancer?  Regardless of your stance on abortion, it simple doesn’t, and never will. 

      One last thought.  Life is considered in Obamacare as finite, restricted to our bodies.  Our bodies are mere shells of an eternal soul.  How many of THOSE lives are lost because of the funding of abortions?  

      • Shelley

        First of all, the law doesn’t say “insurance plans have to cover elective abortions” or anything like that, so I’m not really sure where you’re going there. If some insurance companies choose to offer that coverage, well that makes sense from a business perspective. It’s cheaper to pay for an early abortion than prenatal care (I know that sounds callous, but that’s how businesses work).

        Here’s a big problem with your final paragraph though: are you saying that fetuses don’t have souls or that they do? Because if they do, then surely those souls would go right on up to Heaven (or whatever you choose to believe) and be fine. If they don’t, then how are they being lost if they never existed? Or are you speaking of the souls of the “sinners” who choose to get abortions? Because if that’s the case, then either they’ll repent and everything will be hunky-dory, or they weren’t Christians in the first place and they were never going to be “saved’ anyway. 

        And, um, how exactly do you expect a health-care reform law to address anything other than physical bodies? 

      • peach

         Perhaps I should have said sooo many more will continue to die. A lot of the big killers out there are diseases that can be prevented or treated better if caught early. That means going to doctor appointments regularly. This reform will help people see doctors more.
        Also, abortions don’t cause breast cancer and there is actually evidence that it reduces the risk of ovarian cancer so…
        http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
        http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/type/ovarian-cancer/about/ovarian-cancer-risks-and-causes
        http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/57993.php
        Also also, doctors don’t treat souls.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=820882866 Stephen Ippolito

    ultimately, the government now has the right to tax a group of people that disagree with
    a particular legislation. In other words, I have to right to say you are wrong but I’ll have to suffer the consequences. The is a form of bullying, and bullies only go away when we stand up for ourselves.

    • BryonyVaughn

      And this is new exactly how?

  • Guest

    As usual, they care only about fetuses. Once people are born, they couldn’t care less about them. And they keep insisting that the ACA includes “taxpayer-subsidized abortions”, even though it doesn’t. “Romneycare”–you know, the original law that your guy wrote and implemented in his otherwise-unsuccessful term as governor?–however, does include abortion coverage. 

    Not to mention, I don’t know why anti-choicers think that they have special status to dictate where their taxes go. I’m a vegetarian, but my tax dollars go to inspecting carcasses and slaughterhouses, which I find VERY immoral (and if I had to choose between the life of a meat animal and being aborted before I had any idea that I existed, I’d choose the latter every time). My money also goes to vivisection, which is often even worse than slaughter, and is in many cases a waste of research funds anyway with the alternatives we have. I also never supported the Iraq war, but trillions of tax dollars went to that. 

  • Pingback: John Roberts’ Defection Spells Trouble for Overturning Roe. What Should Pro-Lifers Do About It?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000428435669 Roo Forlife

    ObamaCare Mandate Is Worse Than You Think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6IDTkJAcdY