Something has to give in the health care debate — but that something had better not be the pro-life provisions. That’s the message from House Republicans to a Senate struggling to patch its plan’s holes and find a one-size-fits-most-all solution. Watching from across the Capitol, Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) caucus has just as much riding on the GOP’s new bill as anyone.

Staring down a House-Senate conference, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) knows that pleasing his chamber’s Republicans is only part of the equation, since at least 70 members stand ready to kill any plan that doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood and stop taxpayer dollars from flowing to insurance plans that cover elective abortion. Just last Friday, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) spelled out the stakes, warning that if the Senate takes the “pro-life components” out of their version of the health care overhaul, it will blow the bill “to smithereens” in the House. “We’ve warned the Senate that there’s nothing they could do that would blow the health care bill to Mars more than taking the pro-life protections out of it,” he said. “I think they know if they do, they might as well not vote.”

On top of the 70-member letter already on the desk of the majority leader, another 30 congressmen reiterated their stance on June 21. Now, the chorus is only getting louder. Seeing the Senate plan in jeopardy, Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) told reporters, “Pro-life protections are a no-brainer. For about 80 to 90 guys in the House, that’s an immediate non-starter.”

For McConnell, it’s a delicate dance. The fate of some of these provisions is out of his hands and in the hands of the parliamentarian, who will decide if the walls between taxpayer-funded abortion are budgetary enough not to violate the reconciliation rules. Still, as plenty of conservatives have said (including FRC), there is one way to guarantee the language survives, and that’s to use what has already worked: the 2015 bill. Two years ago, during the test drive for this repeal, the portion of the legislation that gutted the majority of Planned Parenthood’s funding had the green light from the Senate parliamentarian — setting Congress on an easy path to repeat the feat with a Republican president in the White House.

Now, facing a messy and complicated road to passage, some conservatives are starting to float the idea of returning to the 2015 bill, an option FRC has always supported if the Senate can’t agree on an acceptable, pro-life, cost-effective replacement. As crucial as it is to get the alternative right, conservatives should be focused on the biggest priority: repealing the law they’re trying to replace! Time is ticking on the window for budget reconciliation, which is the best strategy for canceling Washington’s check to the country’s biggest abortion business.

President Trump, who’s been intent on keeping his promises, knows how important this one is to voters. “If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!” he tweeted. Senators like Nebraska’s Ben Sasse (R) agree and have been trying to get others on the same page. “This two-step plan to keep our two promises,” he said in one interview, “both repealing and replacing it with a system that provides affordable and portable health insurance, seems like a no-brainer…” At least one colleague is on board. “I’d be fine with that,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) said last Friday. “What we would do is have the repeal go into effect at some date in the future and give us the time in the meantime to develop the alternative.”

If Senate leaders aren’t careful, they’ll be too obsessed with the solution to deal with the initial problem: Obamacare. America survived for more than 200 years without the Left’s debacle of a system. This is urgent, but it’s important for Congress to take the time to get this right — not just for its citizens, but for its future ones.

Originally published here.

Honor Gard: #LetCharlieLive

One month shy of his first birthday, little Charlie Gard’s parents should be planning a party — not a funeral. But that’s exactly the horror that faces Chris Gard and Connie Yates if doctors at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital insist on pulling the plug on the baby’s life support. Plagued by a rare genetic condition, Charlie has been in an intensive care unit since October. Doctors insist that his condition won’t improve and have argued that it’s time to end his suffering by ending his life.

In a case that’s caught the world’s attention, Chris and Connie have fought the hospital all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled last week that the hospital is within its rights to “withdraw life-saving treatment” because “it was likely that Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit.” Like most parents, Chris and Connie are beside themselves — especially since more than $1.68 million has been raised to bring Charlie to the U.S. for an experimental new treatment. All they’re asking for is the right to decide what’s best for their own child.

Speaking for pro-lifers, FRC’s Arina Grossu called on “the British government, the courts, and the hospital to release Charlie. You are holding him hostage. This is a case about parental rights coming into conflict with socialized medicine. Who should decide what’s in the best interest of Charlie? His parents. Not the courts. Not the hospital. Not the government.”

Hearing their desperate plea for help, both Pope Francis and President Trump have offered to intervene. In a statement on the crisis, the Pope said the parents’ rights to treat their son “until the end” should be respected. “To defend human life, above all when it is wounded by illness, is a duty of love that God entrusts to all.” The White House also stepped in the gap, contacting the family to see what can be done. As Donald Trump tweeted, “If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.” Even 37 members of the European Parliament have demanded the hospital step back. This decision, they write, “infringes [on] Europe’s most fundamental values, particularly the right to life, the right to human dignity, and personal integrity.”

With the hashtag #LetCharlieLive lighting up social media, a number of U.S. pro-life groups are speaking out. Yesterday, FRC’s Grossu joined our friends at March for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Concerned Women for America, and others for a press conference (video here) to call attention to the controversy. In a joint statement, the organizations let Chris and Connie know the couple didn’t stand alone.

The idea that a government may override and block parents’ decisions about the care for a child is horrifying. In past situations of similar circumstances, the patient or their family has always had the option of finding alternative care and that’s exactly what Charlie’s parents have done. This is their child and they want to use money they have raised from private donors around the world to provide him access to a treatment option that has had some success with a related condition.



It is chilling that the UK court is allowing the London hospital to deny the family this option, or even the option to bring Charlie to spend his last hours at home. Our two nations have a proud and enduring history of protecting individual rights and respecting home and family. We strongly support the offer of our government to assist Charlie and his parents in this exercise of their natural rights.

Charlie was scheduled to be taken off support last Friday, but in the midst of the global firestorm, Chris and Connie were granted more time. Join our allies at March for Life in demanding the hospital let this little boy live. Sign the petition here!

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.