Nominee to Replace Sebelius Ignores HHS Mandate, Obamacare Abortion Funding During Hearing

National   Lauren Enriquez   May 23, 2014   |   10:36AM    Washington, DC

Americans disgruntled with the abortion-inducing (HHS) mandate found in Obamacare had hoped that the bowing-out of HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius may usher in a replacement who had more concern for the rights of Americans, both to life and to religious liberty.

However, thanks to questioning devoid of life issues in her confirmation hearings, that candidate has hardly received the opportunity to go on-record with her views on the mandate, abortion, and religious liberty. Townhall notes that, among the upwards of 49,000 words spoken at her confirmation hearing, not one of them directly questioned Sylvia Matthews Burwell on her plan going forward with the HHS debacle that Sebelius is leaving in her wake.

sylviamathewsburwellNoting the obvious, Townall states that Burwell is not being vetted over the very issue that prompted lawsuits against the incompetent Sebelius. Namely, as we’ve seen with Hobby Lobby and other freedom-loving conscientious employers, will Americans under Burwell’s leadership be subjected to the same disregard towards their ethical principles?

The central question in the lawsuits filed against Sebelius is whether the federal government can force Americans into complicity with the taking of innocent human life by compelling them to buy or provide health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs.

Unless Burwell rescinds Sebelius’s regulation — which she will not — she will become the enforcer of the single-greatest attack on freedom of conscience in the history of the United States.

Party lines have blurred as neither Republicans nor Democrats have raised the central question to Burwell thus far.

Carol Tobias, President of National Right to Life, noted the centrality of the HHS Secretary’s role in directing Obamacare legislation towards or against mandated coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, surgical abortion, and other life-related ethical issues like euthanasia.

She said (emphasis added):

At issue here today is whether religious institutions and organizations can be forced to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures in opposition to their religious and moral beliefs. . . The law allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate that most health plans cover any service that the Secretary places on a list of ‘preventive’ services.  There is nothing in the law to prevent the Secretary from placing abortion, assisted suicide, or any other additional services on this list.

The question, therefore, is what services the nominee considers “preventive.” In Sebelius’ bizarre, anti-life world, abortion was preventive care (and, apparently, any other procedure or drug Sebelius decided to pull out of her insidious bag of tricks). To that point, Sen. Tom Harkin (D- Iowa) did receive this tidy but flat response from Burwell:

I think we want to work in the federal system to promote prevention.

It remains to be seen (and will apparently take more than 50,000 words to arrive at) whether or not Burwell has the same ideas of “prevention” as Sebelius. If she does, the future for the pre-born and conscientious Americans alike promises to hold many more uphill battles in the fight for life and religious liberty.