This is how abortion advocates view public option health care reform and you can decide for yourself whether or not these groups have highly endorsed Obama and are probably expecting this of him and influential in his administration.



For more on who exactly Wendy Chavkin is click here. For who she donates to click here or here and she was invited to participate in the White House Healthcare discussion with Women's group. The ad above is just a start. It is important to take it further. Below is a video of Pro-life representatives in congress for about an hour speaking on this very issue and actually makes some very unhighlighted points by Big Media that need some discussing before one concludes our money will not be used for abortions via the public option health care reform.



Text From the Congressional Record

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, we're going to be spending the next hour, I and my colleagues are going to be talking about issues that are really on the forefront right now of debate.

We've been talking for weeks and will continue to talk about health care reform; but as these bills are rolling out of committee, we're learning new facts that are, I think, disconcerting to many of us, particularly those of us who are of the pro-life persuasion. So we're going to be talking this evening about the subject of life. We're going to be talking about abortions, preventing abortions, the up and down and the frequency of abortions. We may even get into end-of-life issues because all of these are relevant, of course, to what's going on with the health care debate today in Washington.

I want to start out with the first slide and notice it says from 1973 until the Hyde amendment was passed in 1976, Federal taxpayers were paying for 300,000 abortions per year, even though abortion was never mentioned in the original Medicaid statute. Think about that. There was no provision for abortions to be paid for under the Medicaid statutes, and yet 300,000 abortions per year were being provided, all at taxpayers' expense. How can this happen? How can this happen in America where something is being paid for, something that is unconscionable for, at least today, over 50 percent of Americans, and yet it's paid for by taxpayers?

You know, it's interesting in the abortion debate, some of us are definitely against abortions. We call ourselves pro-lifers. There are those who are in favor of abortions. They, of course, call themselves pro-choice. But the interesting thing about this matter, many of those who call themselves pro-choice actually say that they would like to see fewer abortions, perhaps even no abortions if it could be done, even though they would prefer that there not be a law against that. In fact, a recent study showed that 69 percent of Americans are against taxpayer-funded abortions.

So you have many different issues here. You have whether or not there should be abortions in the first place. You have the issue of those who even want to leave it to the mother would rather not see abortions, and then many Americans who really see no problem with the taking of life, don't want to have to pay for it, at least not through their taxes, of course.

But you know, it's very interesting that, again, from 1973 until the Hyde amendment was passed, there were 300,000 abortions per year. In 1976, something very interesting happened. The Hyde amendment was attached to an appropriations bill, and it prevented any further taxpayer funding of abortions except in the unusual case such as rape, incest, the health of the mother, of course; and we've seen a tremendous dip in the number of abortions. And, again, this slide illustrates the fact I mentioned a moment ago, 69 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions. That's a vast, vast majority of Americans.

We go to slide three. Abortion advocates are using health care reform to advance a hidden agenda. And here's a quote from Wendy Chavkin, who's former board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice, obviously a pro-abortion advocate. She says, Public option--and that's referring to the current bills that are before us today, that is, the option of choosing a public plan, a government-run health care system--public option is key to the health reform, and using medical standard of care in language, instead of listing reproductive services that will siphon off votes, is key to this.

[Time: 21:00]

And what is she referring to? Well, if we talk about reproductive care, that of course implies reproductive services, including abortions.

Well, if we just leave it to the medical standard of care and let someone else define that standard of care, then what we really end up with is a standard of care out there that can be dictated to all that means, of course, abortion services.

So, really, what are we getting to in this entire debate and discussion? We're going to be getting into the weeds here in just a moment with my colleagues. But the bottom line is that if, according to the courts and according to the rules that can be provided by the administration, if abortion is not explicitly excluded under taxpayer funding, under Medicaid, any kind of single-payer, government-run health plan, if it is not specifically excluded, then it is included. Let me repeat that. If it is not explicitly excluded, it is included.

What does that mean? It means that it is a de facto mandate. The courts over and over have judged that if Congress does not say it's not to be paid for, it is considered a standard of care and therefore will be covered.

Again, I want to give you another quote here from the National Abortion Federation, which, ``supports health care reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care for all women.''

So, you see, the pro-abortion people are using this to advance their own goals, and that is to get the number of abortions back up again. I don't understand how that is in any way a desirable goal, but it's obvious they're doing that.

So what we're seeing here is a history that the more accessible abortions are--that is the easier they can be provided, and certainly for free without any costs--the fewer barriers there are, the more abortions there are going to be.

Now I have a quote from Barack Obama, our President. He says, Well, look, in my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care. So it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose. Insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care that's going to be absolutely vital.

It's very clear where our President is going with this. Again, between the judicial branch and the executive [Page: H8282] branch--the judicial branch, of course, in courts--again and again saying if Congress does not exclude it, it is included, and then a President who feels very strongly that it should be included, then it's going to be there unless we do our job and we amend this bill and exclude it. It has been attempted on the Senate side and failed. And certainly we're going to try.

This bill, of course, equals the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in history. In fact, I would say that it stands to increase the number of abortions greater than any time in history since Roe v. Wade. So we're really on the edge of another giant leap in terms of abortions.

I'm going to end my originating comments here with this, and that is many of you may recall when our President was asked, When does life begin? And what was his response to that? He said, as a candidate for the President of the United States, he said, Well, that's above my pay grade.

Well, I ask rhetorically, What is a higher pay grade than being the President of the United States? If he can't decide when life begins, then who do we go to? And that's going to be perhaps a matter of debate tonight.

I'm a physician. I can say very clearly and without hesitation that life begins at conception. It's a biological truth. It's biological fact. There's no way to argue around that. Many have tried. Some say that, Well, it's at the point of viability. But that, of course, is a moving target. Babies are surviving younger and younger in gestation.

So, as we go forward in the debate tonight, we certainly want to include all these issues relative to abortion.

My colleague Joe Pitts, Congressman Pitts, who has been at the forefront of the abortion debate for many years, really brings a lot of experience to us tonight. I want to recognize the gentleman and certainly give him the opportunity to use as much time as he may desire."