74 Days of Life: Pro-life 101: What is the Mexico City Policy?

In my various roles in the conservative movement one fear that has followed me from place to place is fear of mission creep.  If I work at a “tax and spending  group” doesn’t everything in DC involve some sort of taxing and spending?  If I work at a “family” group don’t all issues ultimately affect the most important core of any civilization – the family?  And now that I am with a strictly pro-life group – does fighting for quality of life qualify as a “pro-life” stance?

I think in each of my roles I have been lucky to be included in those decisions and, in my opinion, those groups I have worked at have stayed true to their core mission for the most part.  However there are issues that happen in DC that while on the surface might seem outside of the mission parameters of an organization – when they in fact are essential.  One of those issues is Presidential nominations for when it comes to Washington, D.C. and Presidential power – personnel IS policy.

I will be the first to point out that most of President Obama’s nominees need to be blocked due to them begin to radical to hold government office. A number of Senators from both parties have done what they could to stop some of these nominees from getting confirmed. However too often Senators defer to the President in power, forgetting it is their role to “advise and consent”, not “roll over and sit.”  

Look at early in the Obama Administration.  The fact that Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s nominee to the Justice Department, disagrees with ANY form of parental rights when it comes to their children getting an abortion IS relevant. Or that it is troubling that the President’s nominee to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai Feldlum, believes that sexual license ALWAYS triumphs over religious liberty. And the fact that Kevin Jennings helped form an organization that fights against parental rights in their children’s education, while teaching young kids explicit and dangerous sexual techniques, is so germane to his role at the Safe and Drug Free School Office that to ignore it is almost criminal.  While Dawn Johnsen was blocked, Kevin Jennings and Chai Feldblum were not and Ms. Feldblum is still in power today.

Too often, and especially in this Administration, these bureaucrats, be they political appointees or otherwise, abuse the office they are given.  Think of the recent IRS abuses, Homeland Security designating pro-lifers as “potential terrorists” or the Justice Department unilaterally deciding what laws they will enforce and which ones they will ignore.  It is the role of Congress to ensure such abuses do not occur, either through hearings process after such abuses happen or during the nomination process to ferret out nominees who are likely to abuse the system for personal or ideological gain.

Lesson number one in how personnel are policy is Kathleen Sebelius, currently testifying today in front of the Senate Finance Committee.  When she was up for Health and Human Services Secretary I was very vocal in my belief she should not be given the power over the American health care system and I was not alone among pro-lifers.  While at the Family Research Council I put together a backgrounder that documented her close ties to the abortion industry as well as her support of a larger government role in health care.  Less than a year after her successful nomination the U.S. Congress gave her what some people described as more power than the President. 

After the passage of Obamacare the American Spectator did a cover story on the new powers of “Empress Sebelius.”:

There are more than 2,500 references to the secretary of HHS in the health care law (in most cases she’s simply mentioned as “the Secretary”). A further breakdown finds that there are more than 700 instances in which the Secretary is instructed that she “shall” do something, and more than 200 cases in which she “may” take some form of regulatory action if she chooses. On 139 occasions, the law mentions decisions that the “Secretary determines.” At times, the frequency of these mentions reaches comic heights. For instance, one section of the law reads: “Each person to whom the Secretary provided information under subsection (d) shall report to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate.”

The powers given to Sebelius are wide ranging. In the coming years, if she remains in office, the former Kansas governor will be able to determine what type of insurance coverage every American is required to have. She can influence what hospitals can participate in certain plans, can set up health insurance exchanges within states against their will, and even regulate McDonald’s Happy Meals. She’ll run pilot programs that Democrats have set up in an effort to control costs, and be in a position to dole out billions of dollars in grant money.

But the full breadth of her powers will be known only over time, due to the ambiguity of the language in many parts of the health care legislation. As conservatives make the case for repealing ObamaCare over the course of the next several years, it will be imperative to highlight the arbitrary new powers given to an unelected bureaucrat.

Just this past spring former-Senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint made a similar point:

A 2010 Congressional Research Service report found that the number of new bureaucracies “that will ultimately be created” by ObamaCare “is currently unknowable.” Little wonder that Vice President Biden boasted shortly before the law was passed, “We’re going to control the insurance companies.”

While Mrs. Sebelius is doing some tough dog and pony shows in front of Congressional committees due to the poor performance and roll out of the key signature law of her entire reign at HHS their also appears ultimately there will be little accountability. 

I know what you are thinking: “Tom McClusky is so smart (and humble) and if we all only had listened to him.”  However that is not my point (though I modestly couldn’t disagree).  My point is that if you care about a certain issue you should pay attention to the political appointee that the President is going to put in charge of affecting that issue.  Personnel is policy, and in this administration it is also about power.

In today’s Health section of the Washington Post is a story on premature babies.  While the author seems to at least try a balanced approach towards addressing the issue I sensed an undercurrent of suggesting that it would be best if these babies who are born premature were “taken care of” (read: aborted or left to die) for they are likely, if they survive, to end up with a whole host  of potential ailments.  Also the author debates on who should decide when not to give lifesaving procedures, even though in many cases those lifesaving procedures actually save lives (though not always the picture perfect life the author seems to suggest is the only acceptable life.)

 

In humans preterm birth is the birth of a baby of less than 37 weeks gestational age.   In fairness to the author I will admit I’m a little biased when it comes to preemies.  One week and 14 years ago I had a niece who was due after February 14^th but ended up making an early debut at 25 weeks.  If she was about two ounces lighter we were told there was little they could do to help her.  The first picture I saw of her was a tiny peanut that fit into the nurse’s hand.  There were fears of complications however there was no doubt this little baby was going to affect all our lives.  We ended up being one of the lucky families.  When she entered this world she had a 50 percent chance of survival.  Today you would never know it now. She is healthy, active, quick-witted, outgoing.  This was 14 years ago and the technology advances have been amazing.  However that doesn’t mean high risks still don’t exist. 

 

The number of premature babies born in the US dropped to 11.5% in 2012 – a 15-year low, according to the March of Dimes Premature Birth Report Card.   The March of Dimes also points out 1 in 9 babies – 450,000 a year – are born early.   Chuck Donovan of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, while promoting the legislation of banning abortions after 20 weeks, talked about the survival rates of babies born at various stages of gestation:

 

What do established sources say about the survival rates of babies born at various stages of gestation?  These rates are a product of many factors, including the child’s weight, whether the mother took drugs to aid lung development with foreknowledge of an extremely premature birth, the proximity of the prematurely delivered baby to a neonatal intensive care unit and the technical skill of its treatment team.

 

The Lozier Institute will publish more on this subject in the future but here is one source, the  Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development on the outcomes with babies born in the 22-25 week range in terms of gestation (note that these rates acknowledge that a range of disability occurs in babies born at these ages and that the disabilities decline in both incidence and severity as the gestational age at delivery increases).

 

(The Lozier Institute has more on causes of prematurity here.)

 

The Post author also relates a story on how prenatal diagnoses are not always accurate and sometimes you never know what to expect until the baby is born.  In the author’s case the obstetrician and the hospital crew assembled to help in a birth.  The next few lines made me glad my niece was not born in this hospital 14 years ago:

 

My team did not seem convinced. I knew they felt that they were being forced to do something that they did not agree with. They clearly felt we shouldn’t be resuscitating 23-weekers whose prospects were so grim. They knew my experience in a previous hospital had been with a patient population that was more educated and affluent. Patients at this hospital, the nurse practitioner said, “almost never agree to withdraw life support.” The NICU nurse agreed, both of them warning that if we resuscitated this baby, we were committed to treating it until the very end, whatever complex form that treatment might take.

 

The result of the birth in question was another happy ending – the crew had actually misdiagnosed the gestation time by two or three weeks and the baby in question was fine.   However what if they were right on the timing and the baby had complications?  Its chances of survival depended on medical professionals who, by the author’s inference, would have preferred the baby be left to die.  However these children have as much right to live and as much love to give this world as you or I or my niece.

 

The author and I agree that parents need to be better informed on the risks of prematurity in efforts to prevent early birth and the efforts to pass 20 week abortion bans have been tremendous in education everyone on the development of babies in the womb – as well as how from conception to birth these are human beings that need our protection.  Most women understand this, which is why so many support these 20 week bans and why abortion giant Planned Parenthood opposes them.

 

Lastly I want to give a long delayed thanks to the medical professionals who helped bring my niece into this world.  Their dedication, love and prayers gave my family strength and ultimately made the difference.

Last week the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen “Whatever” Sebelius.  During her testimony, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) asked Secretary Sebelius a question regarding the lack of transparency among health care plans sold on the new the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges and the fact that it is nearly impossible for individuals seeking exchange plans to identify which, if any, plans on their state exchange exclude abortion.   

You may view Rep. Shimkus’s exchange with Secretary Sebelius here .  Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) was somewhat incredulous of the claim by the Secretary. 

“It is an outrage—it doesn’t pass the straight face test and it’s just not believable—that at this stage Sebelius cannot, or will not, tell consumers how to find out whether the plans they are considering include abortions that painfully dismember or chemically poison unborn children.”

Rep. Smith is the lead sponsor of the “Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act”, H.R. 3279.  This bill would reverse the secrecy clause in the ACA and require that all plans on the exchanges disclose whether or not the plan includes abortion.  If the plan includes abortion, the plan must also disclose the amount of the abortion surcharge.   

Somewhat Pogo like (see the attached cartoon for those who are under the age of 40) the biggest hurdle to Obamacare appears to be Obamacare.  Though problems are rampant throughout the law (especially for those who are pro-life and/or support religious liberty) the website is what appears to be the symbol of all the mistakes and problems with the troubling law.  Even the liberal Saturday Night Live (warning the skit is somewhat racy) parodied the debut of the web site with an actress portraying Secretary Sebelius explaining that the website was only built to handle six users at a time.  

In one of those moments where satire trumped reality it was later revealed by the Obama Administration that the total number of people who were allowed to register on the first day was . . . six!  Out of a total of 4.7 million people trying!

Regardless Members of Congress who are trying to protect people from this monstrosity need to be thanked, including Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), the pro-life champion who is leading a number of Democrats in calling for a delay of the law.

Please take some time today to thank these Members of Congress for standing up for taxpayers, both current and those yet to be born!

The main line for the Capitol switchboard is 202-226-8000.  If you are on Twitter here are the Twitter handles for the Members to thank them

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill): @RepLipinski

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ): @RepChrisSmith

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.): @RepShimkus