|
Published: November 17, 2009
Clever, Unconstitutional Way to Curb Abortions
Loyola Law Profs Against Stupak Amendment
Editor: The following editorial appeared November 12 on the SFGate.com site written by Brietta Clark and Karl Manheim, professors of law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles.
 Language in the health insurance bill passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday could effectively eliminate insurance coverage of abortion services, not just for publicly funded insurance, but for most individual private plans as well.
Images
The restriction is cleverly drafted to masquerade as a "taxpayer protection" measure but is structured to discourage even privately funded insurance coverage for abortion.
 As proposed, the Affordable Health Care for America Act prohibits the use of federal subsidies to pay for abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life. It also prohibits government-paid insurance policies from covering abortions.
However, the Stupak Amendment goes much further by adding a prohibition on abortion coverage by private health insurance plans that receive federal funds, whether or not federal funds are used for abortion coverage….
The Stupak Amendment is obviously designed to discourage even medically necessary abortions. Many women have medical conditions that are exacerbated by pregnancy, but by the time they become life-threatening, it is too late for a safe abortion. The Stupak Amendment would preclude women from getting abortions in these and other cases. This is extraordinarily bad health policy, but is it unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court has held that abortion is a constitutional right….
We hope neither the Senate nor President Obama will fall for this clever device to greatly restrict the ability of women to exercise their constitutional right.
For entire story, click here.
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:03 AM By Sawyer
Jesuit schools. Pity what they've become.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:45 AM By BJ
The duplicity of the Obama administration and it's appeal to the pro death to innocent babies in the womb 'intelligentsia' is a wonder to behold. A dark,threatening,malevolent,intelligent, cunning,deathly wonder.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:34 AM By 4unborn
I hope that no Catholic will fall for these professors "medically necessary" false argument. Doctors have used almost any medical condition, such as stress, to justify the killing of an unborn baby.
Brietta Clark and Karl Manheim not only are pro-choice, but publicly so. They should be fired if Loyola Law School is truly Catholic.
If the Senate settles for less than the Stupak Amendment, more unborn babies will be killed.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:58 AM By Daphne de Rutte
Who do you think would win with this one .the Government would find a way to get around it, Our naive bishops think this provisiion makes health care legislatiion more palatable? Not
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:53 AM By ted
A lot of smoke is what the Stupak Amendment actually amounts to. First of all, it's very unlikely to be found in the bill that emerges from the conference committee. Second, it has the "threat to the life of the mother" clause, which will allow the doctor to certifiy the mother will commit suicide if she cannot get her abortion. It's meaningless all around, except for the fact that a majority in the House actually voted for it. Given the escape clauses, even that shard of hope amounts to little more than arm waving politics.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:08 AM By JLS
Why is creating a health bill a foregone conclusion?
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:26 AM By John F. Maguire
There is a note of special pleading here. From an abortocratic point of view, the Stupak Amendment is "bad" health policy (that is an expectable claim from Brietta Clark and Karl Manheim), but their argument that the Stupak Amendment constitutes an "undue burden" upon constitutionally protected access to abortion is conclusory, that is, it is not motivated by an analysis of what constitutes an undue burden upon such access and what does not constitute an undue burden upon that access. ~ Nor do the authors take into account the likelihood that the Supreme Court will revisit Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's "undue burden test" to reassess that test's constitutionality IN RADICE.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:55 AM By Eric
To JLS; creating the health care bill is a foregone conclusion because the liberals in government and in the media have created a crisis where it never existed, then pounded this crisis continuously into the heads of Americans until it became real to a majority of Americans. These people could take the issue of cracks in our sidewalks, turn it into a crisis and the next thing you know a majority of Americans would not only believe we have a cracked sidewalk crisis they would be demanding the government fix all our sidewalks. I believe we can still stop this but it will take the help of Our Lord and Our Lady and some very strong and couragious leadership.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:01 AM By Tony de New York
Brietta Clark and Karl Manheim r working for satan and her the kingdom of darkness.
May G-d have mercy on them.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:05 AM By JLS
When a government can convince the public that the babies belong to the government, then the govt can rule unfettered over that public.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:31 AM By Frank Joseph
Another Jesuit institution gone to hell for the sake of appearing PC. The students and their parents should get their money back if they expected a Catholic education.
I don't want my insurance company to pay for abortions. My premium helps pay the cost of abortions.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:04 AM By Camille
As I understand it, the Stupak amendment to the Universal Health Care for All Americans, is, in reality,the watered down Hyde Amendment. This weakened version of Hyde allows abortions for "life" of the mother, rape and incest. Those three situations are claimed in 90% of the abortions performed.
EVen if Hyde were capablel of restricting abortion funding, in California that would not stop Planned Parenthood from getting millions, annually, in federal and state tax dollars. Maybe those tax aren't paying directly for abortions, but this money is funding the upkeep of Planned Parenthood, its family planning programs, counseling, advertising, rent, phone, etc. Bart Stupak was either brilliant in his approach to exposing the behind-the-scenes machinations of the church and political progressives or he was duped into believing that Obama, Pelosi and company were willing to abide by any limitations on population control in the form of abortion.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:46 AM By WOODY GUIDRY
I graduated from Loyola in New Olreans and later, as a professional musician, performed on both the Loyola campus in Chicago and the Loyola campus of Los Angeles. The Jesuits were REAL MEN in those days 60 years ago. I can't help wondering if anyone has checked the testosterone level in the present generation. St Ignatius de Loyola certainly was not running a quart low.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:12 PM By JLS
Woody, you've seen some history. My folks put the Lawrence Welk Show on TV every week, and tried to sucker me in to watching it, but I then preferred the Rolling Stones. Now I wish I'd have left off with those rock wackos and stuck with the Welk regime. I still have occassional vivid memories of that big blond woman and her bright red dress at the piano whose hands and feet played flawlessly while her face danced around with great joy and fun looking right into the camera ... a tribute to multi-tasking skills. Sometimes I can even hear the music a bit ... yeah, even now I can hear the voice of Welk himself ... what an awesomely impressive show that was. Yep, I'd best stop opening up my memories of it so as not to slip away from reality in the here and now.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:17 PM By Bob
Hasn't anyone noticed that in presumably Catholic schools it doesn't appear that being "Catholic" is a requirement? Wasn't it once?
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:14 PM By Annika
My son graduated from LMU in 2008 and views its authentic Catholic intellectual capacity as " a bluff on the bluff."
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:27 PM By garvan
Once again, no Catholic should ever use the term "pro-choice". These two reprobate law professors are pro-DEATH.
As such, they and those who pay their salaries deserve our unmitigated contempt.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:37 PM By Elizabeth
This professor should be let go immediately!
Find a job at a secular college!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:19 PM By Mark from PA
That is sad that these women would advocate for abortion and against our precious unborn. JLS, my parents watched Lawrence Welk on TV every week too. It was way to corny for me. I liked rock and R & B. I have to tell you that my parents still watch repeats of Lawrence Welk on the PBS station and really enjoy it. I catch a little bit of it with them every once in a while but I am still too young for that music. My parents are the greatest and I am truly blessed.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:38 PM By JLS
It might be that those who pay these Catholic colleges which push abortion are thus complicit in abortion, and thus have excommunicated themselves laetae sententiae.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 6:43 PM By WOODY GUIDRY
JLS, I have a site advertised in the California Catholic Daily which you can click on anytime you are on this Calcath site. I have about ten Welk videos to attract a certain age bracket (I have about 500 videos of the show), but the MEAT of the site is mainly for CAREGIVERS who are really going to be challenged with any care reforms. My Ombudsman experience is what I want to be noticed-although I enjoyed being a very minor celebrity with the Welk show.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:12 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Years ago, I led a picket of the LMU Law School Graduation because their Keynote speaker was none other than the "Catholic" pro-abortion "Justice" William Brennan!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
|
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:31 PM By Martin
Amazing. What are they thinking?
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:48 PM By 1abqdad
Will the lies and distortions never end? What is a "medically necessary" abortion"? Many people would assume that it means that the life of the mother is actually in danger...WRONG!!! In today's disingenuous world, it means making a false claim of medical necessity just to get the government to pay for it! If a woman "claims" that she is being psychologically harmed, they use this clause to falsely identify themselves as "in danger",when it is NOT true! There are ONLY one or two legitimate medical issues, and in most cases, the mother can wait until viability before having a C-Section performed. Sadly, the system continues ot be dishonest. When my wife was diagnosed with "HELP" syndrome, the doctor told us that the ONLY option was to abort our twins. I contacted my ncle, a qualified Ob/Gyn, and he told me that they were lying to us! It was ALL about money, as the hospital did NOT want us to deliver the twins prematurely due to the cost! Well, we followed my uncle's recooemdations AFTER fring my sife's doctors, and we now have TWO, beautiful faughters! Yes, they were only 2 and 3 pounds at birth, but theuy had NO problems being premature, and my wife was just fine!!! So, once again, we MUST be careful about definitions, as the pro-death criminals can NOT be trusted with common definitions!!! They'll lie and distort anything to increase the number of abortions AND to distort the statistics!! (They will claim that they ONLY performed abortions to "protect" the mother's life, when it is just NOT true!)
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|