The Illusory Executive Order

by Matt Bowman on March 22nd, 2010

obama signingPeople are wondering: does President Obama’s executive order, which obtained the votes of (almost all) the Stupak coalition, change anything about the outcome?

Unfortunately it changes very little, and will have no ultimate effect. I will offer a reasoned summary of the relevant issues here, recognizing of course that the liberal Catholic groups praising this bill are no more likely to listen to reason now than they were before yesterday’s vote.

The pro-life movement had and has several specific concerns about this health reform Act. First, the Act funds abortion-covering insurance, it therefore makes abortion insurance available to thousands of women who don’t now have abortions due to lack of insurance, and it changes 32 states from ones that have laws against administering abortion insurance and turns them all into states that do administer abortion insurance.

Second, the Act fails to restrict $11 Billion in funding to “community health centers” from going for abortion.

Third, the Act vastly expands government power and funding without including a corresponding limit to stop that power and funding from making and facilitating conscience violations against pro-life health providers.

Fourth, the Act allows HHS to define abortion into various elements of health care, like “ambulatory patient services,” “prescription drugs,” and “preventive” services.

On the first point of funding abortion insurance and initially forcing states to assist, the Executive Order changes nothing at all. By its terms, it repeats exactly the abortion-insurance funding scheme in the Act. There’s simply no change.

On the second point, the Order does, while it lasts, prevent HHS from taking the initiative to fund abortion with the CHC money, but this limit has little significance because it will be immediately struck down when Planned Parenthood and its abortionist allies are denied CHC funding and then sue. Federal courts have long held that if funding broadly covers Ob/Gyn care it can’t omit abortion unless the statute explicitly excludes abortion. The Order is powerless to change that precedent.

Third, the Order does absolutely nothing to protect conscience rights. Although it mentions conscience rights in the introduction, the Order contains no implementing directives to do anything about conscience rights. This is telling, since President Bush’s mere attempt to enforce existing law was immediately and forcefully eliminated by this President last year. The Order says that existing conscience law will remain in place, but that is largely meaningless because existing laws like the Church and Weldon Amendments don’t apply to much of the new government power and funding in this Act. What both the Act and this Order explicitly fail to do is apply existing conscience rules to all the new government power and funding (which the House bill, and a proposed Senate amendment, would have done). And again, HHS already has acted not to enforce existing laws, even if they did apply. This order changes absolutely nothing from the Act in favor of conscience rights.

On the fourth point, again the Order has no effect. The order doesn’t talk about HHS’s power to define abortion as health care–it only talks about using an accounting scheme to claim that abortions aren’t funded. HHS remains as free as it is in the Act to include abortion as health care in the regulatory decisions it makes.

In summary then, President Obama’s executive order changes almost nothing to alleviate pro-life concerns over this Act. It fully allows federal funding for abortion insurance, it cannot change the fact that CHC funds will be used for abortion, it follows HHS policy against conscience rights by utterly failing to do anything on the issue, and it does not change any of HHS’s ability under the Act to define abortion as health care.

Any pro-lifer concerned about the Act would, objectively, have the same concerns against the Act with or without this executive order.

Share on Facebook | Tweet this | Email Email | RSS

Comments


10 Comments
carole knight
March 26, 2010

I would like to know if the Hyde amendment is part of the new health bill. I am truly confused. Did the Hyde amendment prevent funding for abortions? Thankyou , Carole

[...] share fully the admirable intention of President Obama expressed in his pending Executive Order, where he states, “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that [...]

Leon Patterson
March 22, 2010

From a legal standpoint, the executive order is smoke and mirrors, because the bill provides for abortion on demand, and bills always trump execitive orders. Second, the bill wasn’t yet law at the time the XO was written, so it’s once again meaningless.

Cindy
March 22, 2010

cradlecatholic,
I don’t see it either. If the States can opt out, then why would this not be a pro life part that would intrigue people. I thought the pro life movement complaint was that people said that it was the people that didnt get a say. I just felt that with the states ability to opt out, would actually inspire people to call their reps and work to get that done state by state. I don’t see how that is not something for pro life people to pick up on and try for. I guess I am sincerely niave.

Mark Rohaley
March 22, 2010

Obama is the master of almost saying something. He says nothing and deceit rules him.But that is OK, because Almighty Jehovah God is about to speak to Obama and the whole bunch on Capitol Hill. Take it to the bank.

cradlecatholic
March 22, 2010

This makes No sense to me. The legal precendence is the Hyde ammendment.

Texas
March 22, 2010

Thanks for your clarification Matt. Now the question is, will we continue to pay federal taxes knowing that our money will go to funding abortions in the US in addition to abortions funded by the Mexico City Policy and UN?

Matt Bowman
March 22, 2010

Cindy, it has taken 35 years, and millions of dollars and hours for the pro-life movements to get the state senates, state houses, and state governor offices to all simultaneously approve a law in each of those states against the state’s involvement in abortion insurance. All that is wiped out overnight in the application of this bill. Many states passed funding bans when they were more pro-life than they are now–political inertia prevents them from repealing the existing measures, but would not allow them to pass it again today. So it’s not true to say that this tsunami against state abortion restrictions is simply alleviated by the ability of states to pass new laws and get themselves out of the abortion business again.

Diana
March 22, 2010

Ezekiel 7:18-20 They shall also gird themselves with sackcloth, and horror shall cover them; (19) They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.

Cindy
March 22, 2010

Good morning Matt. Regarding your first point, where you say States that currently do not have abortion coverage (32 of them) they now will. Are you failing to discuss that each State can ‘opt out’ of having any abortion coverage. Is that not true? I read that part of the bill and that is how I understood it. Now granted I am not a lawyer and I may be misunderstanding that, but that is how it reads to me. Can you please respond to that? If in FACT States can opt out, there is still a very fair chance that in certain States, there still will be no abortion funding offered at all.