News

By John-Henry Westen

  WASHINGTON, March 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Apparently the Democrats consider an emergency war funding bill to be an appropriate place to include funding for so-called “emergency contraception” for Planned Parenthood.  On Thursday, the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives was scheduled to take up a $124.1 billion Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund the war in Iraq.

  Into this emergency bill Democrats have buried a provision in the bill on page 155 which specifically mentions Planned Parenthood. The bill includes technical corrections to the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) regarding Medicaid.  “These corrections: … clarify current law that planned parenthood clinics and certain university clinics can continue to receive nominal drug prices”

  The provision, while not giving Planned Parenthood federal funds, would have allowed drug companies to give Planned Parenthood cheaper rates on drugs, without changing drug company profits, thus allowing greater profit to Planned Parenthood.

  Congressional sources have informed LifeSiteNews.com that the language has just been pulled from the bill.  However, pro-life congressional observers are noting that they must “remain vigilant” since such measures will likely resurface, and perhaps without the “obvious giveaway of Planned Parenthood’s name.”

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.