Senator Martinez from Florida introduced an amendment to the Senate Bill concerning the children’s health insurance bill that would have prohibited tax money going to non-government organizations in other countries and used to promote abortion, lobbying foreign governments to change their laws to accept abortion, and which would give those organizations more money to perform abortions.
This amendment would have placed into law the “Mexico City Policy” that President Obama overturned on Friday, January 23, 2009.
The vote went pretty much along party lines, with the exceptions of Republican Senators Collins and Snowe of Maine, Senator Spectre of Pennsylvania and Senator Mulkowski of Alaska. One Democrat, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, voted in favor of the prolife amendment. (Thanks to LifeNews for reporting the votes.)
The Senate version will allow families that exceed 400 times the Federal poverty limit t0 $88,000 and, in some cases, with incomes over $100,000, per year.
For more on the SCHIP Bill, see the Associated Press’ “GOP fails to limit children’s health program.”
Democrats want to more than double spending on SCHIP. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to quickly send him a children’s health bill that he can sign into law. The House has already passed a bill comparable to the one before the Senate.
Republicans offered an alternative approach through an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell argued that his amendment focused more on helping low-income families and did not rely on tax increases to pay for the additional health spending. His amendment also would not allow federal funding to extend health coverage to children of newly arrived legal immigrants, as the Democratic bill allows.
>The language used in this debate is always confusing. I don't think anyone seriously 'promotes abortion' for a start, though many promote abortion rights.Also, the US federal government is still prohibited from funding a single abortion by completly seperate laws (The names of which I do not know, but google should find). The Mexico City policy went one step beyond this though – it didn't just forbid paying for abortions, it forbade giving any money to organisations which perform abortions even in other branches, or which so much as refer people elsewhere for abortions, or even so much as inform pregnent women that abortion is an option.Because it's so broad, it can rule out programs that are only indirectly linked to abortion. For example, if Mexico City were applied domestically, Planned Parenthood would be forced to close down it's STI testing programs and it's low-income breast and cervical cancer screening programs – the government would not be permitted to fund those, because they are performed by a company which also provides abortion services.*In terms of funding abortion itsself, removing MC doesn't really change a great deal. It's most significent as a symbol now. What some on the pro-life don't realise is that it's become a symbol of their desire to end all abortion without giving a thought to the unintended consequences of their policies.*Although I imagine there would be cheers from the pro-life crowd, who have so vilified PP that they are incapable of admitting it capable of doing any good at all. 'PP, save lives? Impossible! Everyone knows PP is made entirely of murderers, rapists and frauds.'