You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.

SMYTH: ‘No discrimination of abortion rights’ a dangerous policy

State provision could become federal law

Question of the Day

Should Congress make English the official language of the U.S.?

View results

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.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts