- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
SMYTH: ‘No discrimination of abortion rights’ a dangerous policy
State provision could become federal law
Question of the Day
New York could soon shut down Catholic and other health care providers for not offering or referring for abortions. Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, with enough support in the New York state Legislature, could sign a Reproductive Health Act this year. Among other actions, the act would declare that New York “shall not discriminate against the exercise of [abortion] rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information.”
The New York State Catholic Conference argues this “no discrimination of abortion rights” provision could “permit state regulators to require support for abortion from any agency or institution licensed or funded by the state.” As the state grants medical licenses, New York could deny licenses to — and thus shut down — such institutions as Catholic and other hospitals or clinics that refuse to support abortion. New York could also deny these institutions Medicaid payments and other funding, which some of these institutions need for financial stability.
Other provisions in New York’s Reproductive Health Act would establish abortion on demand in New York. For instance, the act would permit abortions until birth, allow public funding of abortion and repeal the requirement of parental notifications for minors’ abortions.
New York didn’t invent reproductive health acts. The state of Washington and six other states have passed laws that have such allowances as late-term abortions and public funding of abortions. However, to date, only Washington has passed a “no discrimination of abortion rights” provision. Also, since 1989, members of Congress have attempted to pass versions of a Freedom of Choice Act, which have contained many of the same provisions as New York’s proposed law.
For instance, California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Freedom of Choice Act of 2004, which died in committee, permitted late-term abortions. Also, this act declared, “A government may not discriminate against the exercise of [abortion] rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information.”
If enough states pass reproductive health acts similar to New York’s, there could be momentum for the U.S. Congress to pass a Freedom of Choice Act. However, passing such an act has proven difficult. It seems more likely Congress would simply pass a “no discrimination of abortion rights” law using Mrs. Boxer’s above provision from 2004 or a similar one. Congress could even amend Obamacare by replacing its provisions allowing health care plans to have “voluntary choice of coverage of abortion services” with a “no discrimination of abortion rights” mandate. Such a mandate would leave America with only health care providers who offer or refer for abortions.
It is not too far-fetched to say New York’s “no discrimination of abortion rights” provision could eventually become national policy. Just consider the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ contraception-abortifacient mandate. Despite the so-called “accommodation” for religious liberty passed in early February, the department is forcing Catholic and other religious employers to fund or help provide their employees’ contraception and abortifacients through health insurance plans.
In 1996, West Virginia became the first state to mandate that health insurance must include contraceptives. By 2010, 25 other states, such as Maryland and Colorado, passed similar contraception mandates. When Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the contraception-abortifacient mandate in January 2012, she said, “This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states, which already require contraception coverage in health plans .”
Pro-lifers nationwide must recognize the threat to life and liberty in New York’s “no discrimination of abortion rights” provision. Groups such as New Yorkers for Life have been working to overturn the act, but there is much more to be done. Pro-lifers must oppose New York’s reproductive health act and, at the very least, defeat the “no discrimination of abortion rights” provision. If not, this provision could spread to other states and eventually become national policy.
Daniel Smyth is co-founder and editor of LibertyBlog.org.
TWT Video Picks
President wants everyone but himself to pay more
Get Breaking Alerts
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Afghan who killed three U.S. Marines in 2012 to serve over 7-year prison sentence
- EDITORIAL: Obama's 'economic patriotism' means higher taxes
- HUSAIN: Fleeing Iraqi Christians find safe haven at the Shrine of Imam Ali
- Brian Kelly, Notre Dame ready for different route to title