What’s so bad about HR 358?


Without surprise, after the passing of HR 358, the “Protect Life Act”, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and Nancy Pelosi posted their tears, wailing and concerns in several social networks.

The language of the Planned Parenthood followers was appalling. But I really wonder why would Planned Parenthood say the name “Life Protection Act” is awfully named?  Isn’t Life, according to them, a Choice as well?

Maybe their concern is the same as Pelosi’s. Like when she assures us that women will die in the floor because of this Bill.

Or Cecile Richard’s Statement:

Representative Pitts’ bill would also cut women’s access to abortion care even when going forward with a pregnancy would put their lives at risk.  This is an abhorrent change to current federal law that requires that women receive emergency care in hospitals.

Instead of speculating with this fear-monging demagogy, this is the paragraph from HR 358 Richard’s and Pelosi seem to be referring from:

‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–

‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

‘(B) require or provide such training;

‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.

First, this section is saying that the health care provider or agency cannot receive  federal assistance funds to perform or refer for abortions. However, it is not forbidding states or local municipalities from funding them themselves. It is not denying privately funded insurances to cover abortions either.

Second, I noticed that sites like Feministing, RH Reality Check and similar ones have nicknamed the Bill “Let Women Die Act” because of clause C in this section. Some other sites, like the National Council of Jewish Women claim that even if women tried to pay for abortions with their own funds, this service would be denied to them.

I really do not know of any physician or institution that would just let a woman, man, boy or girl, citizen, resident or undocumented alien die, no matter the circumstances. They are blatantly saying doctors and medical personnel will just stand there and do nothing for the dying woman. Conscience clauses currently exist in Federal and State laws, and women are not dying “in the floor”. Pro-Life means respect care and protection for all life, not deeming one more worthy than another.

On the issue that women would not be able to pay for services “even with their own funds”. The Bill is not denying ALL doctors and medical personnel never-ever perform abortions. It prevents an imposition of Choice on those who for any reason would rather not.

Some have gone as far as to say this Bill  “would restrict religious liberty by imposing one religiously-motivated view on abortion on all“. I do not know of a religion that views abortion as one of its cannons. It is more a prevention to impose the religion of abortion on those who don’t believe in it.

If any, this is not close to be over. The White House Administration has already issued a statement where the recommendation will be to veto the Bill if this is presented in the President’s desk.

To Top

Send this to friend