The RNC and Abortion Insurance Coverage


November 17, 2009 - San Francisco, CA - - The following quotes are from a press release reported in Yahoo News on 11/12/09 provided to POLITICO by the National Republican Committee spokesperson, Gail Gitchko.

"Leading up to passage of the House health care reform bill last week, 176 House Republicans joined 64 Democrats in voting for the so-called Stupak amendment, a measure that prohibits federal funds from being used to buy health insurance that covers elective abortions." [source, Politico, RNC to opt out of abortion coverage,]

Gitchko, spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee – the campaign arm for the House Republicans - said further that "The policy does not cover abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger." [source, ibid]

Where has the RNC been these last 36 years? Life of the mother is a vague undefined term, expressly so, in order to dodge around political goals. Life of the mother under the 1973 Doe v Bolton US Supreme Court Decision, companion to Roe v Wade, established that this phrase encompasses her entire existence from social, educational, work related, lifestyle related, financially related areas of activity and everything in between.

The lawyers within the RNC should have known what Roe v Wade said. Few obviously remember Doe v Bolton except abortion lobbyists when it comes to writing up legislation, in which case they carefully enclose abortion around emotional, meaningless words like "life of the mother."

Even though Gitchko said that "[T]here is no indication that any RNC employee used the abortion coverage, " the very fact that they use CIGNA or any insurance coverage that has an abortion package, they are helping to pay for abortions for everyone else in that plan.

What allows them to get away with this deception is the fact that no legislator has dared carry a bill that addresses the Personhood of the preborn child. American Life League headquartered in Stafford, Va. has been attempting to get Congressional legislators to sign on to a personhood amendment.

And, why isn't it allowed? Because the pro life community of national and local organizations with a few exceptions, has done a very poor job in educating its members to attack the root cause of abortion in our country - the courts and the elected officials.

It is also one thing to allow someone to chose to pay for abortion coverage, it is entirely another matter for legislators to require everyone to accept responsibility for paying for reducing the population by killing the human being in utero which is what will happen with the ObamaCare program.

Here is another aspect to this so-called health care for all concern:"Let's foster personal responsibility in health care." This is the title of an article by Robert J. Laskowski [see,]. Dr. Laskowski is the president and chief executive officer of Christiana Care Health System. This is a hospital system serving the greater Delaware suburbs. A brief review of the website indicates that this is a very politically correct and connected hospital with a multitude of community services including teen pregnancy prevention [4 out of the 5 service agencies represented are abortion related] and home visitations for expectant and new mothers which is included in HR 3962 recently passed by the House of Representatives.

Dr. Laskowski commiserates with all those who find it so hard to lose weight. He presents the attitude that those living in "poor" or immigrant communities find it difficult to buy fresh food or to avoid highly salted canned foods; also, some people just can't help it, he says. It's in the genes. So society should help these people get their obesity under control.

This of course immediately negates his book's title of personal responsibility.

He suggests we [through legislation] make healthy food more affordable, i.e., control the food industry, Make exercise more enticing by creating more sidewalks alongside highways and more bicycle lanes. This is already being done in many areas because the local office holders will gain more tax funding if they can get people out of their cars, thereby, helping with the global warming. Just how much of a third world country appearance should we acquire?

I really like this one; Have health insurers provide customers with breaks on their health premiums if they lose weight. You know, the old, make them an offer they can't refuse?

And, finally, create incentives for doctors who successfully alter their patients lifestyles. "Let's find a way to compensate doctors for keeping people well. Let's train doctors in medical school how to talk about quitting smoking and losing weight."

None of his suggestions are new. A couple of years ago I watched a local town hall type tv program on which one woman insisted that health care insurance should pay the monthly dues for health clubs [saunas, jacuzzis, spas, jazzercize, etc] for overweight people.

The article concludes with "[W]e can beat obesity in America--but only if we find smart and creative ways to help people help themselves."Can you imagine the thought of someone like Congressman Barney Frank authoring legislation to tell you and me how to fight obesity?

A corollary to this program is drug abuse treatment. John Coppola, executive director of the New York State Association of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Providers, has penned an article entitled "Fallout more costly than treatment."

His idea is to fund the continual supply of drugs under government mandates to drug abusers with tax dollars rather than pay the costs to society of the effects of drug addictions. In other words, if someone has a disease he/she deserves to be treated with the proper medication. drug addiction is a disease so rather than denying the addict the "treatment" he so desperately needs, supply him with an appropriate level of the drugs in a controlled and monitored manner in a prescribed setting. Anyone remember "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?"

This could all be handled, according to New York Governor David Patterson through additional taxes on alcoholic beverages. This delights the community organizations who will receive the funds to service the addicts, gets the drug suppliers off the hook, and manipulates the addict to conform to the demands of the new supplier in town.

If we are going to tax alcohol to pay for drugs then do we tax candy makers to pay for alcohol addiction treatments? Will I be able to stop by my friendly drug store to get my nightly prescribed shot of alcoholic beverage of choice?

©2009 Camille Giglio. All rights reserved.