PRESS RELEASE: Americans United Praises Senate Vote Against Nelson-Hatch Amendment

DECEMBER 8, 2009 – AMERICANS UNITED - Americans United for Separation of Church and State today commended the U.S. Senate for rejecting a religion-based amendment to the health-care reform bill that would have limited women’s access to abortion.

By a 54-45 vote, the Senate tabled the Nelson-Hatch amendment, which would have eliminated abortion coverage from insurance plans that receive federal funds, even if the coverage is paid for with private funds. The proposal, promoted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is similar to a controversial amendment added to the health-care bill in the House at the behest of the church hierarchy.

Health-Care Reform Package Should Not Reflect Religious Doctrine, Says Church-State Watchdog Group

The Catholic bishops and allied Religious Right forces are lobbying aggressively to enshrine their doctrines about abortion in the health-care reform package.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “I am glad the Senate defeated this proposal. Health-care legislation should be based on the needs of the American people, not the doctrines of powerful religious interest groups.

“Women should be free to make decisions about reproductive health based on their own consciences, not the political decrees of church hierarchies,” Lynn continued. “Religious dogma must never be imposed through force of law.”

In a Dec. 7 legislative alert, Americans United urged religious liberty activists to contact their senators and oppose the “unacceptable” amendment introduced by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

Said AU, “We simply cannot allow the interests of a politically powerful religious denomination to undermine the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to Americans of all faiths and none.”

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Sphere: Related Content

Related posts:

1. PRESS RELEASE: Religious Right, Catholic Bishops Seek To Impose Religion On All Americans Through Law, Americans United Charges
2. PRESS RELEASE: Americans United Urges Senate Not To Broaden Religion Exemption In Anti-Bias Bill
3. PRESS RELEASE: Proposed Christian Prison In Oklahoma Raises Serious Legal Issues, Americans United Warns
4. PRESS RELEASE: D.C. Council Should Not Cave In To Catholic Church's Demands On Marriage Exemption, Says Americans United
5. PRESS RELEASE: Americans United Opposes Proposed Congressional Land Grant To Religious School In Michigan
6. PRESS RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Reject Religious Discrimination At Public Universities, Says Americans United
7. PRESS RELEASE | Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On Marriage Upholds Religious Liberty, Says Americans United
8. PRESS RELEASE: American United Praises Appeals Court Decision Upholding Separation Of Church And Post Office
9. PRESS RELEASE: Americans United Warns Louisiana Education Board Not To Adopt Review Policy That Favors Creationism
10. PRESS RELEASE: Americans United Commends Appellate Court Decision Against Bible Distribution In Mo. Public School

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

4 Responses to “PRESS RELEASE: Americans United Praises Senate Vote Against Nelson-Hatch Amendment”

1. Vincenti Winchester says:

   December 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm

   I'm not certain why saving the life of a human infant is a religious issue.

   My neighbor, not a religious person, pickets in support of human abortions on Saturdays, and carries signs to save puppies, dolphins, garter snakes and whales on Sundays.

   There isn't a reference to abortion in the Upanishads, Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon or I Ching of which I am aware.

   What I am certain of is that there are many well-to-do non-religious persons supporting human abortion who sincerely believe that only by providing free abortions to the poor can we avoid raising generations of criminals in our society. Is this not a form of genocide not so subtly disguised? Where are the voices of the poor in this debate? I see only the wealthy or otherwise privileged commanding the public pro-abortion stage.

   Perhaps some of the most vocal, conservative anti-abortion voices are the most liberal after all.

   Who knows. I certainly have lost track of the reasoning surrounding this debate. It makes no consistent sense to me.
2. admin says:

   December 9, 2009 at 9:42 pm

   It's looking like the public option is a moot issue, anyway. The health care legislation seems to be changing daily. Thanks for your comment.
3. Angelina says:

   December 10, 2009 at 1:08 am

   I was hoping there would be some kind of loophole for the public option at least in some states or for some people eg 55+ so that way we can see how it works for them and if the government can handle the administration of such additional programs. Who knows what the nitwits will deliver.

   I can't imagine a higher power that would be so simple minded and cruel as anti-abortionist appear.
4. Vincenti Winchester says:

   December 10, 2009 at 10:15 pm

   I believe I may have been misunderstood.

   I was simply attempting to discover the consistency relative to the freedom to choose position.

   I have not joined either the anti or pro abortion debate, nor have I made decisions for whom to vote based on this issue.

   However, that said, when I do join groups attempting to preserve the Earth and her habitat, presumably for the purpose of protecting carte blanche future generations of, say, the whale, I find many people there who do not offer the same carte blanche protection to human infants.

   I am concerned with the logic there.

   We can always improve our social network to aid unwanted human children. We do a terrible job at the moment, I admit. However, we cannot improve our social network for the dead.

   When I look at the toys that will not find their little owners because we have destroyed them, how do I reason to a sense of consistency, if I have a record of campaigning for the mountain lion or owl?

   If we can answer these questions on the basis of logic rather than emotion, I would very much appreciate answers.

   I am perfectly willing to join either group.

   However, at the moment, logic and love tell me that I cannot but attempt to preserve carte blanche the habitat of future human beings if given an opportunity. Heaven and hell do not come into the equation at all from my perspective. I am a member of no church.

   What do we say to the human spirit, if there be such, who we have deprived of human life when our influence could have preserved it? Sorry about that! I was a liberal you know.