LifeNews.com

Reason to Defeat Obama: He Makes You Pay For Abortions

by Carol Tobias | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/3/12 3:13 PM

Opinion

In previous articles in this series, we’ve described Barack Obama’s opposition to bans on partial-birth abortion and sex-selection abortion, and his opposition to a law that would ensure that care be provided for children who are born alive during abortions.

Laws like these that are already on the books and helping to save lives are at risk if Barack Obama wins a second term. Here’s why:

Obama has indicated he will appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who support abortion. While the appointment of any pro-abortion justice could tip the balance of the Court against the unborn, pro-lifers fear one scenario in particular.

It stems from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s apparent view that almost all laws that regulate or restrict abortion are a violation of equal-protection rights, and thus, unconstitutional.

So if a two-term Barack Obama were to appoint a justice to take the place of one of the justices who’ve been voting to allow limits on abortion (and two of those will be age 80 or above by the year 2016), it’s quite likely at least some pro-life legislation could be struck down by the Court. But if the more sweeping view of a Justice Ginsburg or a new appointee like her was to become the Court majority’s position on abortion, it’s possible nearly all pro-life laws on the books, both state and federal, could be struck down. The result would be devastating for the unborn.

One category of pro-life laws abortion advocates have tried to get overturned for decades is limits on taxpayer funding of abortion. An Obama win and his subsequent appointing of one or more justices to the Supreme Court could put that goal within reach.

At the federal level, the Hyde Amendment bans federal funding for elective abortions under Medicaid. States also pay for a portion of the cost of Medicaid, and they are currently not required under federal law to pay for abortions with those funds, although 17 states have chosen to fund abortions, either by action of their legislatures, or on orders of state courts.

In 1980, in the Harris v. McRae decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states are not required by federal law to pay for elective abortions in their Medicaid programs. But a future Court could rule otherwise.

That has already happened in several state courts: Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Minnesota, West Virginia and New Mexico pay for elective abortions, not because the people chose to through their legislatures, but because it was ordered by a state court. An Obama Supreme Court would be a threat to do the same to taxpayers everywhere.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

Statistics have shown that states that end their funding of Medicaid abortions see a significant drop in abortion rates. Conservative estimates of the number of unborn babies saved by taxpayer funding bans since the Hyde Amendment was first adopted top one million lives!

That means that over time, millions of children’s lives could be put at risk if an Obama Supreme Court overturned state or federal limits on taxpayer of abortions.

But that doesn’t have to happen. The National Right to Life Victory Fund is hard at work with its grassroots campaign to persuade and get pro-life voters to the polls to defeat Barack Obama on November 6th.

LifeNews Note: Carol Tobias is the president of the National Right to Life Committee.