While Republicans hammer out their health care plan in DC, Oregon officials already decided what they’ll include in theirs: “free” abortions. To the dismay of pro-lifers, Gov. Kate Brown (D) announced Thursday that she plans to ink her name on one of the most radical bills in the country — a measure forcing health insurers to offer no-cost abortions not just to legal immigrants but to illegal ones too! The move, which comes as U.S. Senate leaders put the finishing touches on a federal plan that would end a mandate like Brown’s, incensed local conservatives who are already living under the most extreme abortion policies in America.

“We don’t need to do this,” state Rep. Mike Nearman (R) said during a fiery floor debate. “This is Oregon. There [are] no legal restrictions on anyone’s right to get an abortion. You can get an abortion at any time for any reason. Even sex selection.” Like us, they aren’t sure who the mandate is meant to please, since the majority of Americans (61 percent) don’t want to be on the hook for abortion-on-demand. As most people will tell you: It’s one thing to make abortion legal — it’s quite another to force Americans to pay for it.

Meanwhile, at least one group was thrilled by the news — the organization that stands to profit most from it: Planned Parenthood. According to The Washington Times, Cecile Richards’s group even helped write the bill, which, not-so-coincidentally, does wonders for its flailing business. To tamp down the criticism, Laurel Swerdlow, the group’s local advocacy director, argued that free abortions are as American as apple pie. “Rights don’t matter if you can’t access them. Every Oregonian — no matter where they live or how much money they make or who provides their health insurance — deserves access to the health care they need.”

There’s just one problem: Abortion isn’t health care. And it certainly isn’t a “right” guaranteed by our nation’s Constitution. Unfortunately, Brown perpetuated the lie, telling reporters, “The ability to control our bodies and make informed decisions about health are critical to providing all Oregonians the opportunity to achieve our full potential and live productive, thriving lives. Attempts to deny access to contraceptives and family planning are an attack on all Oregonians, particularly women of color, low-income and young women.”

In one of the more outrageous parts of the bill, a half-million dollars will flow to the 22,873 women who are eligible for Medicaid, despite living in the country illegally. Of course, that’s nothing new for some liberals, who celebrated a similar taxpayer-funded gravy train when Obama was president. Until Congress stepped in, Immigration and Customs Enforcement was happily giving detainees more extensive “health care” than U.S. citizens! Now, it seems, Oregon wants to carry on the tradition of rewarding people who break the law.

Speaking of breaking the law, that’s exactly what the state’s bill appears to be doing, since it — like the controversial California mandate — orders employers to offer this abortion coverage over their moral objections! While the Left will point to the bill’s flimsy religious exemption, even the media agrees the text is so narrowly written that it’s hardly worth mentioning. That means, with very few exceptions, churches and other faith-based groups will be strong-armed into paying for plans that violate their deeply held beliefs. This is exactly the sort of clash the Supreme Court sought to avoid in its rulings for Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Woods, and others.

If there’s one thing both sides should agree on, it’s neutrality in health care. That’s what Americans want — and it’s what unborn children deserve. Sadly, Gov. Brown and company don’t believe in choice. Not really. If they did, they’d give Oregonians one in coverage.

Originally published here

A Heart to Hartzler Talk on Defense

As if health care weren’t enough to keep the Hill hopping, members will be trying to check off another major piece of their to-do list next week: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). For more than 50 years, Congress has prided itself on passing the military’s bill on time (or close to it), while the rest of the appropriations process falls into a mess of continuing resolutions and omnibuses. After eight years of Barack Obama, the Armed Forces is a shell of its former self, dropping to levels America hasn’t seen since World War II. Almost immediately, the former commander-in-chief set to work on a radical makeover that, until last week, included the recruitment of people who identify as transgender.

At least temporarily, Defense Secretary James Mattis put a halt to the change, which FRC’s Peter Sprigg calculated would cost America $3.7 billion dollars in 10 years. Conservatives like Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) and Marine Corps vet Duncan Hunter (R-CA) are determined to put the military’s focus back where it belongs: on fighting and winning wars. But they’ll need your help to do it! The six-month delay may be a good start, but it’s a long way from rolling back a devastating policy that never had the approval of Congress.

As Vicky pointed out on last week’s “Washington Watch," "We [Congress] are charged by the Constitution to provide for the common defense, so we have the ability to step in and to tell the Department of Defense, ‘You will not [implement] this policy,’ or, ‘You will study it further. If you’re not willing to take the prudent steps that we believe are necessary, we can.’ This was done by the former secretary of defense — and it can be undone by the current secretary of defense.”

She’s right. It should be Congress — not Obama appointees with political agendas — affirming or rejecting any policy. “They have left us with a policy right now that’s very concerning to our military personnel at a time when we should be focusing on the threats from North Korea and [Vladimir] Putin and ISIS,” Vicky said. “We’re happy to deal with the threat here at home [of] allowing transgenders in our service, which is a huge problem because it impacts our readiness — and it’s a huge cost for our military. As you mentioned, we’ve been trying to advocate for increased defense spending because we’ve had sequestration, we’ve had all of these onerous cuts that have really jeopardized our ability to meet those threats.”

Apart from the $3.7 billion cost in medical treatments and lost deployments, Vicky points out that the new policy “requires training of every military personnel — a day-long training — when they should be in the cockpit [or] on the firing range. They should be out there doing active-duty training, not sitting in a meeting room all day to hear about how, basically, I think their rights are going to be threatened — because there are going to be privacy issues as well.”

As the Army explains, they’ll have full rights to “sleeping quarters, restroom facilities, and showers in the gender of their choice.”

In a passionate hearing on the issue, Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) couldn’t believe that we’ve arrived at a place in our nation where we’re actually debating this possibility. “Transgender soldiers under these [training] vignettes are not required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior – but everyone else is, violating their privacy, their rights, their morality and their unit cohesion,” he said. “I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we have lost our way as a nation.”

Our military shouldn’t be focused on making a fringe group feel good — it should be focused on making America safe. And that’s hardly possible with a costly — and dangerous — distraction like this one. If you want to support our troops, support the GOP’s amendment to add conscience protections, defund the military’s coverage of gender transitions, or roll back the entire Obama transgender policy. Email or call your House member today!

Originally published here

GOP Draws a Line in the Sanders

Americans rejected Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as the presidential nominee, and now they’re rejecting his politics too. After implying that Christians have no place in public service in a hearing for Trump budget pick Russell Vought, the Democratic senator got quite an earful from voters (including 56,994 of you who signed our petition). Now, 64 members of Congress are weighing in, demanding that Attorney General Jeff Sessions reaffirm the Constitution’s ban on religion tests.

Led by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) and Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), more than five dozen Republicans made it clear that “While there is continuous debate about the scope and meaning of the religion clauses in the First Amendment, the text of Article VI has been clear: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or public trust under the United States.”

“Yet," they go on, "questions were asked during a recent Senate Budget Committee hearing about an executive branch nominee’s adherence to the Christian faith, suggesting that such beliefs disqualified the nominee from service.”

It was a powerful rebuke of Bernie Sanders and his allies, which have slowly let a “Christians-need-not-apply” mentality creep into the public debate. So, the next time you get a petition like ours, sign them! Your voice matters. Even a single name can make a major impact when enough people stand together.

Originally published here

---

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