Weve been keeping you posted on the fight for life that is being waged within the national health care legislation. Unfortunately, there have been some Members of Congress who have tried to play both sides of the issue. I want to simply lay out the facts about what happened late last Thursday, July 30, 2009 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, so that there is no confusion about what occurred.
As you know, the Committee spent long days and late nights over the past two weeks considering sweeping health care legislation that, among other problems, would dramatically expand the number of abortions, as well as the number of taxpayer-subsidized abortions. The ACLJ has been supporting a number of amendments that would help solve this significant problem.
One of the most important amendments in this effort was offered by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). This amendment would have ensured that no insurance plan (public or private) could be mandated to cover abortion, and that no taxpayer-funded plan could cover abortion. In a bipartisan vote at approximately 9:34 p.m., this important amendment initially passed 31-27 (the Committee Clerks tally can be viewed here). This tally included a last minute switch from no to yes by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA). This switch was made in order for Chairman Waxman to have the right to request a re-vote later in the evening. Subsequent events would suggest that the intervening time was used to lobby Members of the Committee to change their vote.
At approximately 11:20 p.m., Chairman Waxman called for another series of votes. The first vote was a motion to reconsider the previous vote on the Pitts/Stupak Amendment. With help from the 13-seat advantage held by Democrats, this motion was approved 35-24, with only one Democrat, Rep. Bart Stupak, bold enough to dissent (the Committee Clerks tally can be viewed here).
The approval of Mr. Waxmans motion enabled the reconsideration of the Pitts/Stupak Amendment. This time, the Amendment failed 29-30 (the Committee Clerks tally can be viewed here). As you can see from the Committee Clerks documents, there were three changes that allowed this change in outcome to happen:
Rep. Gordon previously had a mixed record on life issues. It appears that he has tried to have it both ways. His defense now is that he misunderstood the vote the first time, but has always been pro-choice. Judging by the tragic outcome that his late-night vote switch last week brought about, I would have to agree that his pro-abortion colors have been plainly revealed. I am disappointed that it took the defeat of such an important pro-life amendment to bring this to light. It is my hope that this occasion will cause Rep. Gordon to reassess his position on this most fundamental and critical issue.
Earlier this year, I wrote about the significant pro-life victory when President Trump reinstated Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy to prohibit the use of U.S. taxpayer money in foreign aid to organizations that either fund or promote abortions around the world. President Trump did exactly what...
How could France censor a pro-life video message of people with Down Syndrome talking about how much they love life and love their mothers? Our European affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), has just filed a legal application with the European Court of Human Rights to challenge...
Over the last several years, many state legislatures around the nation have taken important steps towards upholding their mandates to protect the most vulnerable of their citizenry. Sixteen states have passed laws that ban abortions at the point at which the unborn baby with a heartbeat can feel...
Today the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), along with its co-counsel, filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking rehearing in the appeal involving the undercover investigation of the abortion industry conducted by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). In particular,