Pro-Life Military: Keeping abortion out of military hospitals

There are battles won and lost day after day on Capitol Hill that are off the radar screens of most Americans. One such battle occurs this week.

"The Sanchez Amendment" is an attempt by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D., Calif.) to change current U.S. policy regarding abortions in U.S. military hospitals.

The amendment, proposed as an addition to the Department authorization bill (HR 1588), is disingenuous on its face. It says that it would not require the Department of Defense to pay for abortions, but, in fact, it would. Who would perform the abortions? Military personnel? Where would they be? Military hospitals? Taxpayers would have a hand in it.

The support for the current policy-disallowing elective abortions in U.S. military hospitals (there are rape/incest/health-of-the-mother exceptions)-actually has support on both sides of the aisle, and it has a history. The effort to nix the ban has been rejected every year since 1996. President Clinton signed the prohibition into law in 1996 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The ban has bipartisan support for some practical reasons. Yes, pro-lifers have been flooding the offices of House members to encourage them to vote down the Sanchez amendment on moral grounds. The United States military performing abortions is a terrible culture of death moment, from the perspective of one opposed to abortion. A military that just liberated Iraq with minimal loss of life in the business of extinguishing innocent life for the sake of convenience is a bad and fundamentally contradictory message. But there are also lessons from recent history that transcend the abortion debate.

When abortions were permitted on military installations from 1993 until Bill Clinton signed the prohibition into law in 1996, military medical personnel refused to have anything to do with it. Doctors, nurses, support staff wanted no hand in abortions. So outsiders had to be brought in perform the abortions. So the military winds up paying more people, specifically to end pregnancies. The current general trend in doctor hesitancy to learn to or perform abortions suggests this would be no different today or in the foreseeable future.

The Sanchez amendment is likely to be defeated, again, either Wednesday or Thursday of this week.

Then it will be on to the Senate. Last year Senator Patty Murray (D., Wash.) sponsored her body's version of the provision. Last year, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, used the "veto" word in advising the congressional conference committee on the bill.

If the amendment is defeated, as it is expected to be, at least in the House, and probably in conference, if not in the Senate, it will certainly be considered a pro-life victory. But that doesn't have to get pro-choicers up in arms. There are so many other fights. There are so many other venues. The U.S. military has so many more important things to do than get mired in the abortion debate-and, frankly, to accommodate an unnecessary procedure. Even if you support abortion rights, isn't there something about a "pro-life" military that feels right?

My recent letter to W:

Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.