DNC Chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz "appalled" Republicans want to keep traditional abortion restrictions

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) is "appalled" republicans want common sense restrictions on abortions. She accused them of wanting to "allow hospitals to legally refuse life-saving treatment to women."

WASHINGTON, DC – October 17, 2011 — Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) made the following statement about H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act.

“When I talk with women in my district, they are concerned about finding a job, keeping their home from foreclosure, or putting food on the table. The last thing they should have to worry about is having their constitutional rights threatened, or their health endangered.

“That’s why I’m so appalled that the Republican majority has brought to the floor yet another bill that would limit women’s access to reproductive care, and has the potential to do real harm.


“H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, actually does just the opposite. This bill would override core patient protections and allow hospitals to legally refuse life-saving treatment to women.

“This extreme legislation is dangerous for women’s health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis facing American families. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop these dangerous initiatives against women’s health, and join Democrats in continuing to work toward rebuilding our economy and putting America back to work.”

What in the world is  Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz talking about? The GOP bill allows abortion in case of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother.

‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--

‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

 Perhaps she is talking about the part of the bill that allows Catholic Hospitals and others with moral objections to refuse to perform abortions.

(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-

‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--

‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

‘(B) require or provide such training;

‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.

This has been longstanding law.

Since the enactment of Roe v. Wade in the mid-1970s, a national conscience clause law has protected doctors who refuse to perform abortions and sterilization procedures from discrimination and disciplinary action.

The Church Amendment (named for the Sen. Church, not the house of worship) exempted private hospitals receiving federal funds from any requirement to provide abortions or sterilizations when they objected on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions.

All the H.R.358 - Protect Life Act does is shore up the same kind of abortion rules we had in place before President Obama and Obamacare came along. Of course, Democrats claimed Obamacare doesn't allow Federal Funding of abortions.