Editor’s note. My family and I will be on vacation through September 6. I will occasionally add new items but for the most part we will repost “the best of the best” — the stories our readers have told us they especially liked over the last five months. This first ran August 18.
The Guttmacher Institute is the abortion industry’s think tank, formerly a “special research affiliate” of Planned Parenthood, whose analyses the media treats reverentially.
If you go to the Guttmacher Policy Review dated September 13, 2013, you’ll learn a primary reason that Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party are determined to repeal the Hyde Amendment, an annually enacted law that prohibits federal Medicaid funding for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
In the Review, you’ll find the conclusion that if the Hyde Amendment were repealed, “The number of abortions among Medicaid-eligible women nationwide would be expected to increase by approximately 33,000 [annually].”
Guttmacher sniffs that this would represent “only a 2.5% increase in the number of abortions performed nationwide,” although to anyone who does not draw a paycheck from the Abortion Industry or who has a heart, that is a lot of additional dead babies.
In fact, the impact would be even worse. As NRLC’s Federal Legislation Director Douglas Johnson noted, “It should be kept in mind that the 33,000 projection applies only to Medicaid, but the actual effects of losing the Hyde Amendment would be broader, because some other federal health programs (e.g., Indian Health Service) track the Hyde Amendment policy as well, either by law or as a political matter.”
NRL News and NRL News Today have written a dozen or more stories about Hillary Clinton and her party’s steely determination to end a 40-year-old policy that is supported overwhelmingly by a strong majority of the public. Clinton brought it up when she was endorsed last January by Planned Parenthood’s political arm and a call to repeal Hyde is now in the platform of the Democratic National Committee.
The bill to require funding of elective abortions in federal health programs was introduced a little over a year ago and was generally similar to previous bills introduced over the years. However it received new attention this week when the Associated Press’ David Crary wrote “Democrats Seek Reversal of Ban on Federal Abortion Funding” in which he talked about 119 sponsors in the House, all Democrats. We read in Crary’s story
“I don’t think we’re as far away as people might think,” said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., a leading abortion-rights supporter. “We got tired of tacitly accepting that a ban on Medicaid money was acceptable.”
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
