After months of insisting that health care reform does not and will not include federal funding for abortion, President Obama is now considering issuing an executive order, after passage of the health care reform bill, that will state that the legislation does not include funding for abortion.
However, if the bill excludes federal funding for abortion, why is an executive order necessary?
The answer, of course, is that President Obama and the Democratic leadership know that the Senate health care reform bill includes subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortions, could possibly lead to abortion coverage mandates for insurance companies, and does not prevent other funds in the legislation from directly paying for abortions.
The question then becomes, can an executive order correct all of the abortion-related problems in the bill?
The answer is a resounding no. While a carefully worded executive order might be able to take care of some of the mandate concerns, it cannot correct all of the abortion-related problems with the bill. A statute cannot be undone by an executive order or regulation. For example, an Executive Order cannot prevent insurance plans that pay for abortions and participate in the newly-created exchanges from receiving federal subsidies, because this allowance is explicitly written in the bill.
The fact that statutes cannot be overridden by executive orders or regulations has been repeatedly affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down an executive order issued by President Bush to invoke military commission jurisdiction over Hamdan because Congress had impliedly prohibited this action. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 579-80 (2006).
Further, Executive Orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created. In spite of the fact that the American people overwhelmingly do not want to see their tax dollars go toward abortion, we continue to see restrictions on federal funding for abortions reduced to executive orders, appropriations riders, and regulations. The majority of Americans want to see a prohibition on federal funding for abortion included in permanent, statutory law.
Congress failed to deliver a statutory prohibition on abortion funding in health care reform, and an executive order cannot do the job.
Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser promised “to work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted.”
“The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President’s whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless.”
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life Action:
“Once again, the proposal to address the problem of abortion funding in the health care bill through use of an executive order is a tacit acknowledgement that the bill as it stands is pro-abortion legislation. Both the President and the Speaker have repeatedly denied this stark fact.
Furthermore, the AUL legal team has concluded that an executive order is not an adequate fix to mitigate the Senate bill’s establishment of taxpayer-funded abortion. For example, an executive order cannot prevent insurance companies that pay for abortions in the exchanges from receiving federal subsidies.
In addition, executive orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created. President Obama revoked the Mexico City Policy, through the use of an executive order, and thereby allowed federal tax dollars to finance organizations that provide abortions internationally for the first time in years.
This fact, coupled with the Administration’s repeated endorsement of the pro-abortion lobby’s agenda, force any reasonable person to conclude that this bill will clearly create the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in American history.”
For more reaction see Nicedeb:
A clearly disgusted Doug Ross, cuts loose:
“This bill fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the people; and it does so in a despicably evil way. Health care will, there is no doubt, be wielded as a political weapon to reward and punish.
Congratulations, Bart Stupak and your so-called “Pro-Life” Democrat Caucus, you’ve sentenced the unborn generations of this country to misery, poverty and economic ruin. Way to stay true to your beliefs.
You aren’t pro-life, you’re low-lives.”
Tom Price calls it “a pig in a poke” – you can’t override legislation with an executive order.
Noting Israel history of peace overtures in the Middle-east Charles Krauthammer asks:
Why did President Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don’t bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem……………………..
Clinton’s spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace — literally dying for peace — since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)……………………
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies — therefore Israel shouldn’t take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world — and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel – at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews — about candidate Obama’s abiding commitment to Israel.
From a new WordPress blog
Anxious, heavy-hearted, thirsting, yearning,
Expecting, wanting to be open, tired, uptight,
Fearful, yet hopeful, searching for a deep walk
With God, with myself.
Probing, getting in touch, drained,
Excited, amazed, awed, presence of the deepest kind,
constantly with me, dialoguing, communing,
Unlocking, emptying, freeing, healing.
Body, mind, spirit, touching, embracing, loving and
Being loved, with inward amazement,
New life penetrating, releasing, accepting,
My God, You deeply entered my life,
Renewed and cleansed and gifted me.
With new eyes, body, and heart, I praise and glorify,
Thank and acknowledge You, my companion, friend, spouse;
My life’s energy and source, continue to abide with me
As I journey with You; following Your lead,
Receiving Your healing, living Your life
As You send it to me in joy and in peace.
by Sister La Donna Pinkelman, OSF Sylvania, Ohio