CBN Blogs

Major Pro-Life Victory as Healthcare Abortion Amendment Passes

David Brody — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:15:07 GMT

By a solid 240-194 margin, The U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday adopted an extremely important pro-life amendment that will essentially prohibit federal funding of abortion in the health care reform legislation. Folks, this is a huge deal.

This war for the pro-life community is not over. A Senate battle is ahead and so is a potential battle to strip this language out of any eventual House/Senate conference committee but nevertheless what happened on Saturday in the House will go down as a HUGE victory for pro-life Americans.

I just got off a conference call late this evening with Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council and he called it a "very significant pro-life milestone".

More reaction from both the pro-life and pro-choice side is below but let me just offer a little analysis first:

First of all, if you just heard a loud thud well that was pro-choice liberals in the House plopping down in their seats dumbfounded and frustrated as can be. Not only does their healthcare reform bill not contain a "robust" public option but it now contains this new pro-life language. This is a horrible turn of events for House liberals. You can be sure they'll be pressure on Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to strip this language out in conference (if the bill makes it that far) but for now this vote tonight is something pro-choice liberals will lose some sleep over.

It should not be lost that the vote here was 240-194. This was not a 218-217 squeker. Far from it. This was a pretty resounding statement about where this country is at regarding abortion. Think about it. The Democratic Party controls the House and yet look at how well this pro-life vote did tonight. Remember 2006 when the Democratic Party took control of the House? Well one of the reasons for that was because the party was able to find moderate pro-life Democrats in the South and other parts of the country to increase their margin. Well those same pro-life Democrats came back tonight and had their say.

Let me also say that Nancy Pelosi really had no choice here but to allow this vote. If she didn't, the healthcare reform bill would have gone down to defeat.

Here's the reaction from some key groups and people tonight:

Rep. Bart Stupak, (D-Michigan)

“Today all members of Congress were afforded the opportunity to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents on the issue of federal funding for abortion,” Stupak said. “Passage of the Stupak Amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy; it simply continues what has been the law of the land since 1977 and I am pleased that with the addition of this amendment the House health care reform bill will continue that policy.”

“I have long been an advocate of health care reform. My goal has always been to ensure that the voices of the majority of Americans who oppose federal funding for abortion were heard in this important debate. Now that those voices have been heard we must move forward and pass a bill that provides quality, affordable health care for all Americans. I thank Speaker Pelosi for allowing this important vote to occur and I appreciate the hard work and perseverance of my pro-life colleagues in Congress who held strong and stood with me over the past several months as we worked to find a way to allow this vote against all odds.”

Statement by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN)

“We believe in the sanctity of life, and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment addresses a moral issue of the utmost concern. It will limit abortion in the United States. Because of this, while we strongly and deeply oppose the underlying bill, we decided to stand with Life and support Stupak-Pitts.

“The danger of this bill passing without critical pro-life language was too great a risk to do otherwise. Indeed, a number of Democrat supporters of Stupak-Pitts had privately indicated to many of our colleagues that all they needed for “cover” was a vote, and they would support final passage even if the amendment failed.

"To be clear, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment's passage is the right thing to do. We believe you just don’t play politics with life.

“When this bill is conferenced with the Senate, the pro-life majority in the House of Representatives must ensure that this important amendment is in the final legislation. If it does not, this same strong majority must defeat the bill.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins:

"This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families. We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion. I congratulate the bipartisan coalition that for months has worked to ensure that abortion is not covered in the bill.

"Since prior to last year's election Family Research Council has been working towards true health care reform that protects life, freedom and families. We supported efforts to ensure the legislation will not be paid for by the lives of future generations. We thank Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) for standing with more than 70% of Americans who morally object to funding abortion with their hard earned dollars.

"Unfortunately, H.R. 3962 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. The Speaker's bill still allows rationing of health care for seniors, raises health costs for families, mandates that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, encourages counseling for assisted suicide in some states, does not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seeks to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Speaker Pelosi is using the guise of health care reform to push her version of social engineering onto American taxpayers. Additionally, the legislation would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations.

"FRC will work hard to ensure pro-life provisions remain intact as the bill goes through the legislative process, and will work tirelessly to ensure the legislation is more friendly to families than the current bill."

Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest:

"The passage of this amendment is a victory for the pro-life Americans across this country who have flooded Congress this week with the message that abortion does not belong in health care. The bipartisan effort that led to its passage, under the leadership of Congressmen Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts, is a step toward a future where both political parties defend Life.”

“One victory however does not mean the battle is won,” Dr. Yoest continued. “We are deeply concerned by the rhetoric we heard today from Democratic leadership indicating an intention to subvert the bipartisan pro-life majority. We will remain vigilant in watching the final language of the Senate bill to ensure that pro-life protections remain in the final health care reform bill.”

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser:

“Tonight the House of Representatives made a principled and politically sound decision to continue our nation’s longstanding policy of protecting taxpayers’ conscience in the area of abortion funding. We urge the Senate to follow suit. We will remain vigilant, and shift our efforts to the Senate to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill.

“On behalf of the 280,000 members and activists of the Susan B. Anthony List who contacted Congress on this issue, I applaud all those who voted to honor the American legacy of protecting citizens’ conscience from conscription into activity to which most are morally opposed. Congress has sided with the resounding majority of citizens opposed to government funding of abortion. Supporters of government-funded abortion will now have some explaining to do back home, before voters head to the ballot box in 2010.

“If there’s one thing many members of Congress learned from Tuesday’s elections, it’s the danger of being out of step with your constituents. Votes do have consequences, and the recent tensions over health care reform should drive that message home. We will use every tool in our arsenal to ensure the folks back home know the truth about their legislator’s record.”

Center for Reproductive Rights Statement:

“Tonight’s vote in the House is a stunning assault on women’s health and rights. In a matter of hours, our elected officials have fallen hook, line and sinker for the anti-choice position, dispensing with a credible compromise on abortion and adopting a bill that would leave millions of women worse off than they already are today."

“American women demand that members of the Senate refuse the political bait which sullied the House vote and protect women’s health. Health care reform is supposed to provide affordable health care coverage to all Americans. Yet for women, this legislation gives with one hand and takes away with the other, forcing millions to buy insurance that does not meet all of their medical needs.”

Read U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Letters of Support for Pro-Life Healthcare Amendment

David Brody — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:09:00 GMT

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been a MAJOR player in this debate over abortion language in the House healthcare reform bill. The bottom line is that if they signed off on new acceptable language then that would be the key for many pro-life Democrats. The Brody File has received the two letters put out by the Bishops. The first one is in support of this new pro-life amendment that will be voted on today. (Saturday) The other one is more broader about their support for healthcare reform if the new pro-life amendment is adopted.

November 7, 2009

United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we strongly urge you to vote for the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment and to support a fair process in the House of Representatives to consider this essential improvement in health care reform legislation. The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections in the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962).

Despite some claims to the contrary, H.R. 3962 does not reflect the status quo on abortion. It fails to explicitly and clearly include the longstanding policy prohibiting federal funding of elective abortion and plans which include elective abortion (Hyde Amendment). Medicaid, Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and other federal health legislation include this provision. Currently H.R. 3962 has some helpful provisions on conscience protection and non- preemption of state laws, but it utterly fails to maintain current prohibitions on abortion mandates and abortion funding. Instead it creates elaborate measures requiring people to pay for other people’s abortions with their taxes, private premiums or federal subsidies. Significantly, the Federal Employee Heath Benefit Program, which covers all members of Congress and their families, has long been governed by the Hyde amendment in all its aspects and is widely seen as a model for reform.

Additionally, H.R. 3962 allows the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate that the “public option” will include unlimited abortions. Millions of purchasers will be forced to pay an “abortion surcharge,” which requires purchasers of many plans to pay directly and explicitly for abortion coverage. This is unprecedented in federal law.

The Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment will not affect coverage of abortion in non-subsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds. Thus far, H.R. 3962 does not meet President Obama’s commitment of barring use of federal dollars for abortion and maintaining current conscience laws.

If the Motion to Recommit focuses on denying immigrants needed health care, as reported, we strongly urge Members to oppose the Motion to Recommit.

Our Bishops’ conference has been working for many years to support health care reform legislation that truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all. Adopting this amendment will help move us move toward this essential national priority and moral imperative.

Sincerely,

Bishop William Murphy   Cardinal Justin Rigali
Diocese of Rockville Centre   Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Chairman     Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice and  Committee on Pro-life Activities
Human Development

NEXT LETTER

November 7, 2009

United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Representative:

The Catholic Bishops of the United States have supported adequate and affordable health
care for decades. Our Bishops’ conference has been working with Members of Congress, the Administration and others to help fashion health care reform legislation that truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all.

We are very pleased that the House leadership has agreed to allow the essential Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment to be considered by the House. This amendment will add to the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) crucial provisions that maintain the current protections against abortion funding and mandates. Specifically, it will achieve our objective of applying the provisions of the Hyde amendment to the public health plan and on the affordability credits in the exchanges called for in the legislation.

Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation. It also would fulfill President Obama’s commitment in this area. Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion. It is a major step forward. We express appreciation for the courageous and principled leadership of the Democratic pro-life caucus, especially Representatives Stupak, Ellsworth, Kaptur, Oberstar, Donnelly, Doyle, Dahlkemper, and others who played essential roles in persuading the House leadership to allow this essential amendment to come to the floor. We also welcome the wise decision of the House leadership to take this important procedural step which we believe will help pass much needed health care reform.

The Conference will remain vigilant and involved through this entire process to assure that these essential provisions are maintained and included in the final legislation. With this important step forward we hope the House can come together and finally move forward essential reform which truly will protect the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. We also hope the Senate will follow the example of the House and include these essential safeguards in their version of health care reform legislation.

We are deeply concerned about other aspects of health care reform, especially as it affects the poor and vulnerable in our midst. We will continue to insist that health care reform legislation protects conscience rights. We strongly support provisions in the legislation that will make health care more affordable for low-income people and the uninsured. We remain deeply concerned that immigrants be treated fairly and not lose the health care coverage that have now. If the Motion to Recommit focuses on denying immigrants needed health care, as reported, we strongly urge Members to oppose the Motion to Recommit.

The nation and the Congress are now engaged in an intense and much needed national discussion on how to provide affordable and accessible health care for all. We are not experts on health care policy and cannot assess every provision of legislation as complex as this proposal. However, health care legislation is not just political, technical, or economic, but also moral. Health care reform is about life and death, who can take their children to the doctor and who cannot, who can afford decent health care coverage and who are left to fend for themselves.

For the Catholic Church, health care is a basic human right and providing health care is an essential ministry. We pick up the pieces of this failing system in our emergency rooms, clinics, parishes and communities. This is why we strongly support Congressional action on health care reform which protects human life and dignity and serves the poor and vulnerable as a moral imperative and an urgent national priority.

Sincerely,

Update on Pro-Life Healthcare Amendment in House

David Brody — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:50:16 GMT

In case you haven't heard, pro-life lawmakers won a big battle against liberals late last night when they struck a deal with the Democratic House Leadership (Pelosi and Hoyer) that will allow them to offer much stricter language on abortion coverage in the healthcare reform bill. Read more on that from my late night post here.

A couple updates.(after afew hours sleep) The amendment is technically called the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Smith-Kaptur-Dahlkemper amendment. Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) all testified before the House Rules Committee early Saturday morning in support of their amendment to address the abortion funding concerns in H.R. 3962.

A Pro-Life aide is circulating the following as to what the amendment will do:

"The amendment maintains the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for benefits packages that include abortion. However, it clarifies that individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, can with their own funds purchase separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans that do not receive government subsidies may still offer elective abortions. "

Expect a vote at any point today (Saturday) The amendment is expected to narrowly pass since more than 40 House Pro-Life Democrats will combine with virtually all Republicans to reach that magical 218 number for the amendment to pass. If it passes, it's going to drive liberals absolutely crazy. They will have a decision to make at that point. Either vote NO on the overall healthcare reform bill because the bill will now NOT allo federal funds to pay for abortions OR swallow hard and vote YES on healthcare reform anyhow.

A top Republican source on the Hill tells The Brody File the following:

"The Stupak amendment is expected to garner significant Republican support because it is strictest possible abortion language. The vote on Mr. Stupak’s amendment looks like it will be very close, and if it passes then the liberal Democrats will just have to swallow it if they want to pass the overall bill."

Breaking News: Pro-Lifers Get Their Vote on New Abortion Language

David Brody — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:03:38 GMT

Breaking news tonight:

It's about 1:45am Saturday morning as I write this but it is now official. The Rules Committee is going to allow Pro-Life members of Congress to offer an amendment to the healthcare reform bill on the House floor that would clearly and plainly state that there can be no funding for abortion and no government subsidies for plans that cover abortion.

This "Hyde Amendment" type of language will indeed be brought to the House floor for a vote. The vote would require a simple majority (218 votes) not two-thirds as is sometimes the case.

This amendment will have quite a few names on it but it is basically the Stupak-Pitts language that was voted down in committee a few months ago. (though it's not an exact carbon copy) This amendment offered in the Rules Committee tonight is the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts Amendment. Through long negotiations tonight with Democratic House leadership, Pro-Life Democrats Bart Stupak and Brad Ellsworth along with Pro-Life Republican Joe Pitts were able to make some progress and they will now get the vote they have always wanted... and quite frankly the entire pro-life community has wanted from the start. If this vote becomes reality, it would be a big victory for the pro-life community. This language has a very good chance of passing if the Pro-Life Democrats join with all Republicans to pass it. Don't expect pro-life Republicans to vote for the final healthcare reform bill but the pro-life Democrats will probably do so which means healthcare reform should pass the house but probably WITHOUT the abortion language liberals wanted.

Among the people inside the Speaker's office tonight were Bart Stupak, Brad Ellsworth, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Brody File has the amendment that is being debated in the Rules Committee tonight: Read it below:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. llllllll, AS

REPORTED

OFFERED BY MR. STUPAK OF MICHIGAN

(Amendment is to H.R. 3962, As Proposed to be Amended by
Mr. Dingell’s Amendment)

Page 97, strike line 13 and all that follows through
page 98, line 7.

Page 110, strike lines 1 through 7.

Page 114, line 21, strike ‘‘consistent with subsection

(e) of such section’’.
Page 118, line 21, strike ‘‘(including subsection
(e))’’.

Page 154, after line 18, insert the following new section (and conform the table of contents of division A accordingly):

1 SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.
2

(a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appro3 priated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
4 may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part
5 of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of
6 abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from
7 a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that

2
would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including
a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising
from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the
result of an act of rape or incest.

(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in this section
shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from
purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions
for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a
plan that includes such abortions, so long as—

(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely
using only funds not authorized or appropriated by
this Act; and

(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased
using nonfederal funds required to receive a federal
payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP
offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under

1 this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long
2 as—

(1) premiums for such separate supplemental

4 coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not Click here to see the language of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment from earlier this summer in committee.

5 authorized or appropriated by this Act;

6 (2) administrative costs and all services offered

7 through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid

8 for using only premiums collected for such coverage

9 or plan; and

10 (3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that

11 offers an Exchange-participating health benefits

12 plan that includes coverage for abortions for which

13 funding is prohibited under this section also offers

14 an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that

15 is identical in every respect except that it does not

16 cover abortions for which funding is prohibited

17 under this section.

Page 171, strike line 5 and all that follows through

page 172, line 8.

Page 182, line 22, strike ‘‘willingness or’’.

Page 246, strike lines 11 through 14.

No Single Payer Amendment Offered in House Bill

David Brody — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:49:14 GMT

There will be no Single Payer alternative amendment proposed on the House floor. Speaker Pelosi just released the following statement:

“Within the next few days, the House will vote on the most comprehensive health care legislation in our history. Our bill will provide affordability to the middle class, security to our seniors, and responsibility to our children by not adding a dime to the deficit. While our bill contains unprecedented reforms, including an end to discrimination for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on raising rates or dropping coverage if you become ill, our bill cannot include provisions some strongly advocated. The single payer alternative is one of those provisions that could not be included in H.R. 3962, but which has generated support within the Congress and throughout the country.

“Congressman Anthony Weiner has been a forceful and articulate advocate for the single payer approach and our legislation. His decision not to offer a single payer amendment during consideration of H.R. 3962 is a correct one, and helps advance the passage of important health reforms by this Congress. While single payer, like other popular proposals, is not included in the consensus bill we will vote on this week, Congressman Weiner has been a tireless and effective advocate for progress on health care, and his work has been a vital part of achieving health care reform.”

While on the surface this may seem like a good thing for conservatives, please understand that all this really means is that the Single Payer Alternative is really the next step. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It's all about being "incremental" right? This is exactly what conservatives have been saying all along...that this healthcare reform bill now will simply march America down the road to a single payer system like England and canada.

You think the signs below will make an appearance during a potential Single Payer argument in the future?

Flow Chart on Healthcare Abortion Funding

David Brody — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:11:58 GMT

If you're having a hard time following the abortion language in the House bill, join the crowd. It can be a tad bit confusing. Pro-Life groups have decided to come up with a flow chart that tries to better explain it. See it below. It references the cointroversial "Capps Amendment" (named after Democratic Congresswoman Lois Capps) which is one of the main problems with the bill.

Will Ellsworth Abortion Amendment Please Pro-Life Democrats?

David Brody — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:06:27 GMT

While we wait to see what Indiana Congressman Brad Ellsworth's revised healthcare reform abortion amendment looks like, we can tell you that the pro-life Democrat continues to come under criticism for trying to forge some "middle ground" in this area. Ellsworth is going to submit his new abortion language to the House Rules Committee later this afternoon. If the 40 or so pro-life Democrats like it then Nancy Pelosi will be able to get her healthcare reform bill passed in the House. If the langauge is not to their liking,then Pelosi, the President and liberals have a big problem on their hands and will be handing out these potholders below on the House floor:

An Article from the Courier Press in Evansville Indiana has the details.

Here is the headline from the paper:

Eighth District U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., might have expected that his amendment to the health care reform bill, which he says will ensure no federal funds are used to provide elective abortions, would be opposed by Planned Parenthood.

The abortion rights group weighed in with a statement of opposition on Tuesday.

But the Ellsworth amendment, which House leaders have said they may incorporate into the bill, also has sparked a furious backlash among national, state and local anti-abortion groups who typically support Ellsworth.

Pitted against the Ellsworth amendment are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life Committee, Indiana Right to Life and Vanderburgh County Right to Life.

"It was a bayonet in the back from someone who said he was on our side," said Doug Johnson, Washington, D.C.-based legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

"The pro-abortion side is using Ellsworth's phony language to undercut the real pro-life amendment, which is Congressman Bart Stupak's amendment. Mr. Ellsworth is allowing himself to be used to, perhaps, score brownie points with House Democratic leaders."

Ellsworth spokeswoman Liz Farrar provided a written statement from Ellsworth:

"As I have said repeatedly, I will not support a bill that I believe would result in federal tax dollars being used to pay for abortions, and, with the help of pro-life constituents, I am leading the effort to protect federal tax dollars and provide pro-life insurance options to Americans," it said.

Farrar said Ellsworth's amendment could change.

The crux of the Right to Life case against the Ellsworth amendment is that it does not strike what Johnson calls "trump-all" language in the health care reform bill that states, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)."

The services described in paragraph (4)(A) are "abortions for which the expenditure of federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted."

That means elective abortions, which are not funded under Medicaid because that program is funded through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

But Farrar pointed to a Congressional Research Service report that says Ellsworth's plan "would seem to broaden (bill language) to ensure that no federal funds are used to pay for elective abortions by health benefits plans participating in the Exchange."

"You don't have to remove (the 'nothing shall be construed' language) as long as our language ensures federal funds cannot be used to provide abortion," she said.

The Congressional Research Service report did not address that question.

The Ellsworth amendment creates a procedure by which Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius must hire private contractors to segregate premiums paid for elective abortions under the public health insurance option from other amounts paid to the government.

With the premiums, the contractor would pay the abortion provider that was billing the public plan.

"It's not government funds that are coming into that contractor," Farrar said.

"It's a private individual that's sending it to this private company that is then reimbursing private doctors, private hospitals, for procedures. So it never comes into the treasury. It's not public funds."

Johnson called that "a money-laundering scam."

"Do you suppose that if the CIA collected money from citizens and used it to hire private mercenaries to engage in covert missions, Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi would agree that this was 'private' activity rather than federal government activity?" he said.

"We don't care what they call the funds or who they hire to collect the funds or write the checks. If the federal government plan pays for abortions, that is federal funding of abortion."

Stupak, a Michigan Democrat and co-chairman of the Congressional Right to Life Caucus to which Ellsworth belongs, seeks to forbid a public insurance option from covering elective abortions and subsidies for private plans that cover elective abortions.

The Stupak amendment would strike the bill's "Nothing in this Act shall be construed" language.

But House leaders will not allow a floor vote on Stupak's amendment, so he has threatened to line up at least 40 anti-abortion Democrats to vote against the rule governing debate on the bill.

With Republican votes, that would be enough to defeat the rule — meaning the health care reform bill could not go to the floor for a vote and Democratic leaders presumably would have to negotiate with Stupak.

Instead of rallying anti-abortion Democrats behind Stupak's plan, Ellsworth began circulating versions of his own amendment last week. Farrar said Ellsworth isn't trying to undercut Stupak but intends to offer an alternative that might attract more support.

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said Wednesday that Ellsworth's language would be incorporated into the House health care reform bill in the rule, but on Thursday other House leaders stopped short of making a commitment.

Kasey Hunt, a reporter for Congress Daily AM, a subscription-only publication of National Journal magazine, said House leaders view Ellsworth's amendment as a compromise that could peel away enough Democratic support from Stupak's amendment to negate Stupak's threat.

"They're trying to get all the centrists and pro-life Democrats who want to vote for the health care reform bill to sign onto something that is (a compromise)," Hunt said.

Stupak was unavailable to comment, but his spokeswoman, Michelle Begnoche, said he has reviewed the Ellsworth amendment.

"(Stupak) is continuing to hold firm on his amendment," Begnoche said.

Ft. Hood Shooter Motivated by Islamic Beliefs?

Erick Stakelbeck — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:54:09 GMT

The latest indicator of Nidal Malik Hasan’s religious/political motivations in perpetrating the Ft. Hood massacre just crossed the wires. According to eyewitnesses, Hasan yelled “Allahu Akhbar.” or “Allah is great,” while mowing down U.S. soldiers. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Click on the viewer below to see my live appearance from today’s 700 Club, in which I analyze Hasan’s history of radical Islamism. CBN News Reporter Jennifer Wishon has the set up story first and then my analysis follows.

New TV Ad Aimed At Stopping Abortion Healthcare Funding

David Brody — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:45:47 GMT

A new ad against government funding of abortion in healthcare is goign to start running on CNN today and tomorrow as the House gets set to debate and vote on the healthcare reform bill this weekend. The ad below is put out by the "Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition" and will run on CNN Headline News throughout Friday, November 6th and Saturday, November 7th.

From Planned Parenthood to Pro-Life

David Brody — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:21:00 GMT

The Brody File normally talks faith and politics but let me just share a compelling story with you. Watch below as my CBN News collegue Wendy Griffith brings you the story of Abby Johnson. She left her position at Planned Parenthood after watching an abortion ultrasound. Her comments are just fascinating to watch.

Down to the Wire on Healthcare Abortion Language

David Brody — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:47:20 GMT

At this late hour in the debate over healthcare reform, the battle over abortion and healthcare has a new face: His name is Congressman Brad Ellsworth. And Friday he will be the man in the spotlight. Folks, the healthcare abortion debate in the House is now in its final stages and this man below is set to play a critical role.

He's a pro-life Democrat from Indiana with a 100% rating this year with National Right to Life (his overall rating through the years is 90%) but the pro-life lobbying group is simply appalled at what he is trying to do change the complex abortion language issue. Ellsworth says he's trying to make the bill more pro-life but pro-life organizations say it's a phony amendment.

As you may know, pro-life Democrats and Democratic leadership in the House are trying to come up with language on abortion that will satisfy these 40 or so pro-life Democrats who believe that as it stands now, the healthcare reform bill would allow federal funds to go to pay for abortions. If an agreement isn't reached then these Democrats are threatening to stand with Republicans and take down this healthcare bill. Here's where Ellsworth comes in.

The Congressman from Indiana and his staff have put forward an amendment to the House bill. We'll find out Friday afternoon if it will be adopted. We understand he's still working on the amendment and tinkering with it. The goal here is to get enough pro-life Democrats to back this new abortion language so they'll back the underlying healthcare reform bill. Friday is going to be a very interesting day. Pro-Life groups can only hope and pray that Ellsworth's amendment doesn't attract enough pro-life Democrats because if not this healthcare reform bill is going to pass.

Read what Ellsworth's staff writes about the underlying principles of his amendment on his website:

Ellsworth's proposal would make 5 key pro-life changes to the bill;

effectively preventing federal tax dollars from being used to fund abortions and ensuring Americans have access to pro-life insurance options in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange:

Explicitly prevents all federal tax dollars from being used to provide abortions in the public option;

Prohibits any funds from the US Treasury from paying for abortion services in any of the plans purchased through the proposed Health Insurance Exchange-private or public;

Establishes clear, strict rules for separating public funds from the premiums of private individuals (ensuring that no public funds are ever used to pay for an abortion in any health plan offered on the Health Insurance Exchange);

Guarantees every American participating in the Health Insurance Exchange will always have access to a pro-life insurance option;

Expands conscience protections to prevent the government from discriminating against pro-life health insurance plans.

If you're a pro-lifer that sounds great right? Well, pro-life groups and other pro-life congressmen have gone through the amendment and hate it. Read below from the Baptist Press:

Ellsworth, who has had a nearly perfect pro-life voting record since entering the House in 2007, said he is seeking "to ensure pro-life concerns are addressed" in the bill. House pro-life leaders, as well as anti-abortion organizations, criticized Ellsworth's amendment as a sham, saying it fails to address any pro-life concerns. His solution to the problem with the "public option," they said, is to have the federal government hire private contractors to disburse funds for abortions.

Ellsworth's proposal is a "phony amendment designed to subsidize and expand the abortion industry cloaked in deceptive language," Rep. Chris Smith, R.-N.J., said in a written statement. "Under the new arrangement, instead of [a Health and Human Services] employee issuing blood money checks for elective abortions, HHS will pay a contractor to issue checks for abortion on demand.

"It is a distinction without a difference," he said.

"This language amounts to the federal government taking out a 'contract' on the unborn," Smith said. "For the first time ever an elaborate government program will be created to pay contractors to pay abortionists for the dismemberment, chemical poisoning and in utero starvation of innocent unborn children."

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said in a written release, "The Ellsworth language is a political fig leaf made out of cellophane.... This is a money-laundering scheme -- a federally funded 'bag man' will deliver government funds to abortionists."

More dissection of the amendment and its language here and here

The moderate (some would say progressive) group "Third Way" has sent The Brody File their reaction to the Ellsworth amendment: Link here. Transcription below.

Rep. Ellsworth’s amendment builds off of an earlier good faith attempt offered by prochoice Rep. Lois Capps that was included in the Energy and Commerce Committee’s draft bill. Below we explain how the Ellsworth Amendment moves the bill in a pro-life direction but still maintains abortion neutrality. Rep. Ellsworth has a 100% score with National Right to Life and Rep. Capps has a 100% NARAL rating. We commend each of them for trying to strike this delicate balance.

1. The Ellsworth Amendment ensures that no federal funds can ever be used to fund abortion in the Exchange.

The Capps Amendment stated that no federal subsidies to individuals in the form of “Affordability Credits” can be used to pay for abortion coverage. The Ellsworth Amendment expands this ban to apply to any and all “other federal funds” that do now or may in the future fund the Exchange. This means that any additional federal dollars, even those beyond “Affordability Credits,” that may be designated to fund the Exchange (i.e. as part of a future stimulus package) will now not be able to fund abortions.

2. The Ellsworth Amendment codifies [or “puts into permanent law”] strict Hyde limitations on the pro-life plan.

Under the Capps Amendment, at least one plan in the Exchange must be available that covers abortion services only in Hyde Amendment exceptions (in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment). And this plan can, in fact, choose not to even cover Hyde abortions. From the pro-life perspective, the shortcoming of the Capps Amendment is that although the Hyde Amendment has been in law for more than 30 years, it is not permanent law—it is renewed each year as part of a Labor, Health and Human Services funding bill. The Ellsworth Amendment ensures that even if the Hyde Amendment lapses or changes, at least one plan in the Exchange will still meet the Hyde Amendment standards by providing abortion only in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment, while still making it clear that this plan need not cover abortions at all. In sum, this provision enshrines the Hyde Amendment protections in federal law for the one required pro-life plan in the Exchange, guaranteeing that pro-life Americans always will be assured of this option.

3. The Ellsworth Amendment gives greater protection to insurance plans that do not cover abortion.

Under the Capps Amendment, abortion coverage is specifically banned from the minimum essential benefits requirements for insurance plans both in and out of the Exchange. The Ellsworth Amendment tightens this provision by ensuring that plans that do not cover abortion are not penalized in any way by the Commissioner, who administers the day-to-day workings of the Exchange. It requires that the Commissioner “not discriminate” against a plan based on whether or not they cover abortion. This broadens protections that pro-life plans have in the Exchange. For example, it would ban discrimination against pro-life plans wanting to get into the Exchange after the first required pro-life plan has filled that “slot.”

4. The Ellsworth Amendment ensures that the federal government has no role in collecting or paying abortion claims if there is a public plan.

The Capps Amendment assumed that, if a public plan were enacted, the federal government could itself be the administrator of the plan and in that case, the federal government would collect the private premiums, segregate funds that can be used to pay for abortion and also pay for the abortion claims out of the segregated funds. The Ellsworth Amendment would remove the federal government from this direct interaction with abortion by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use a private contractor to collect, segregate, and pay all abortion claims. This idea is
modeled on Medicare, which relies on private contractors to carry out much of its administrative work.

5. The Ellsworth Amendment strengthens the guarantee of segregation of funds.

Under the Capps Amendment, the plan would have to “provide assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner” that funds were being segregated for the purpose of ensuring that federal tax dollars were not being used to pay for abortions. The Ellsworth Amendment raises the bar by requiring that segregation of funds comply with three separate standards: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; Office of Management and Budget circulars on fund management; and guidance on accounting from the Government Accountability Office.

Speaker Pelosi's Office Pushes Back on "Monthly Abortion Premium" Charge

David Brody — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:43:30 GMT

Speaker Pelosi's office is pushing back tonight against House Minority Leader John Boehner's claim that the House bill includes a "monthly abortion premium. They say it's just simply not true.

The Brody File contacted Speaker Pelosi's office and spokesman Brendan Daly sent me the following by email:

“The House bill will continue longstanding federal policy, which currently bars federal funding for paying for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman.”

To get up to speed on what Minority Leader Boehner is claiming click here.

Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director with National Right to Life sent me the following email:

"The Boehner post is perfectly accurate. We call it the 'abortion surcharge.' It is just one more thing illustrating what we've been saying: The bill explicitly authorizes the big new federal government health insurance plan, the public option, to pay for all elective abortions.

Under the abortion surcharge provision, any citizen who wants to enroll in the new government program would be REQUIRED to pay a surcharge explicitly devoted to paying for elective abortions. The language sets a minimum of $1 per month per enrollee, but there is no maximum.

But this is a side issue, because even if the Democratic leadership struck out the 'abortion surcharge,' the same fundamental problem would remain: The 'public option' is a federal agency program, and when it pays for elective abortions, that is federal funding of abortion on demand -- no matter what convoluted cloaking devices the pro-abortion politicians invent to try to conceal what they are doing.

By the way, here is the actual language in the bill:

Section 213 (page 96, line 16) of HR 3962:

(b) Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a basic plan of the services described in section 222(d)(4)(A).

(2) CONSIDERATIONS- In making such estimate the Commissioner--

(A) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care;

(B) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and

(C) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.

(Note: "the services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)" refers to any abortions that are not eligible for funding under Medicaid -- in other words, all abortions, elective abortions.)

Oh, and one more thing. Check out this language in the bill:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)." (abortion services)

Folks, I think you can see why Pro-Life groups say this whole thing is a big joke. They want that language taken out. Don't count on it.

The Art of Conversation

Lee Warren and Julie Ferwerda — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:59:55 GMT

The small group I’m in at church just branched out and started a new small group—attracting several new people and a few I had already met. At our first meeting last week, the leader handed us two index cards and asked us to write down a question on each one.

Each question was supposed to be an ice breaker—something a person might ask a stranger to get to know a little about the person. After we wrote our questions down, we handed the index cards back to the small group leader. He shuffled them and each of us drew two questions, and then we answered them as best we could.

One of the questions I drew asked me to name three people I consider heroes, and then I was supposed to explain why they were my heroes. One of the people I mentioned was my grandfather. He died in 1985, when I was 19 (no doing the math regarding my age!); he taught me so much.

My parents divorced when I was eight years old and, for obvious reasons, their relationship was strained after that and it left a male void in my life.

My grandfather tried to fill that void by being a positive male role model. He did a great job. He’d take me into his workshop and allow me to “help” him with various fix-it projects. He took me hunting and fishing. When I was old enough, he took me out on a dirt road and taught me how to drive. And he showed me how to treat a woman with respect by treating my grandmother with respect. Basically, he modeled manhood for me.

I explained this to my small group and a couple of them asked me follow up questions. By the time I finished, they were beginning to see the real me. And likewise, as I listened to the answers to the questions they drew, I got a good glimpse at what makes them tick.

It was a great exercise because the conversation we had went deeper than our thoughts about the latest college football game or what we thought about the most recent FlashForward episode. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with either of those topics, but by digging deeper, we got to matters of the heart.

As I drove home, I thought about how beneficial it would be to have similar types of conversations with fellow singles. So many of us are lonely and I wonder if part of the reason we feel that way is because our conversations with people are often so shallow.

A few days before I attended this small group meeting, I picked up a book called 4,000 Questions for Getting to Know Anyone and Everyone, by Barbara Ann Kipfer. I bought it because it provides great writing prompts for my personal blog. The day I bought it though, I sat with two friends in a coffee shop and used the book to steer our conversation. The questions we discussed dealt with family history, our quirks, our thoughts about free will, etc.

Most of my friends’ answers didn’t surprise me because I know them both well, but I was surprised by a couple of answers—not in a good or bad way. I was just genuinely surprised. By asking them deeper questions, I learned new truths about them in a short period of time, and I suspect they did with me as well. We made a real connection.

All of this makes me think about the next time I’m around a bigger group of singles. There’s nothing wrong with small talk to begin with, but what if the conversation went a level or two deeper? Think about the ministry value. People might not feel so alone in their struggles. And think about the common bonds that people might form. It might even set the stage for a love connection.

~ Lee

Boehner's Office Claims Healthcare Bill Has "Monthly Abortion Premium"

David Brody — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:30:40 GMT

The House Minority Leader's Press Office is now pointing to language inside the House bill that they say shows how they'll be some sort of monthly abortion premium in the healthcare reform bill.

Read the just released information from John Boehner's office below:

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium
Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009

Follow @GOPLeader on Twitter for updates.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy. The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.

House Republicans are offering a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

The Brody File is digging for more information.

House Call

CBN News — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:29:30 GMT

by Dana Ritter, CBN News Producer

Some parties require a lot of planning and preparation. You know the kind, with formal invitations and RSVPs and official head counts and what not.

Today's "House Call" on Congress was anything but that. In fact, it was less than a week ago that Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota, urged people to come. She brought it up during an appearance she made on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News Channel. Six days ago.

Some people apparently got the invitation. Thousands showed up on the West Front of the United States Capitol. I was surprised at the size of the crowd when I first saw it out the window of the taxi cab. I didn't really know what to expect, I mean how many people could there be on a random Thursday in the middle of November, with less than a week's notice, right?

But, they came. And these people were passionate, too. I saw lots of home made signs that said things like "No Obamacare" and "Hands off my health care." There were people dressed in colonial attire, people waving American flags and "Don't Tread On Me" flags. I could literally hear people calling their Congressmen on their cell phones as I walked through the crowd.

I heard people chanting "Kill the bill!" and "U-S-A!" I saw a guy playing bagpipes and another man playing a saxaphone.

I met people from Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas and Ohio. It was definitely a lively crowd!

When the press conference with Members of Congress started, the crowd quieted down to listen. Rep. Tom Price, a Republican from Georgia and also a Physician started things off saying he had a diagnosis "Legislative malpractice."

The crowd went wild. They cheered Rep. Bachmann as she quoted Thomas Jefferson, "A revolution every now and then is a good thing." They booed when she brought up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's name - so loudly that I couldn't catch what it was that Bachmann said about Pelosi.

House Minority Leader John Boehner made a surprise appearance. Other attenders included Tony Perkins of Family Research Council and conservative celebrities John Voight and John Ratzenberger.

After the event, activists were encouraged to go find their Congressmen's offices. I don't know how each and every one of those thousands of people would have done that, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of them did. I know one thing for sure, I wouldn't want to be standing in that line to go through security! I'm happily back at the office now, writing this blog for you. Hopefully that's a little taste of what it was like to be there today. *I'm working on getting some video up here on the Beltway Buzz, check back for that!

I heard about counter protests, but I didn't see any of those people from where I was. Like I said, it was quite a crowd. Don't ask me to put a number on it though, I could more accurately guess the number of jelly beans in a jar. I'm not a good judge of things like that.

More on Israel's Weapons Seizure

Chris Mitchell — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:17:04 GMT

In the biggest arms seizure in its history, Israeli commandoes captured more than 500 tons of weapons bound for Hezbollah. If you'd like to see some of the footage of the raid and the weapons they found, you can click here:

In the video, you'll notice containers marked "IRISL," which stands for "Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines." Some of the containers actually bore the markings of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. While Hezbollah claims the weapons were not meant for them, the chief spokesperson for the IDF told CBN News those claims are "not serious." They maintain it's no secret Iran is arming and funding Hezbollah and has become its main supplier of weaponry, with Syria as its next biggest supplier.

Some people have asked how Israel could seize this ship. They acted under the auspices of UN Council Resolution 1747. That resolution specifies, "Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related material, and all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran."

Yet Iran transfers arms in three main ways to Hezbollah. One is by air into Beirut's airport, the other by land from Syria and the third by sea. One defense analyst told us both land and air leave larger "intelligence signatures," which makes smuggling by sea more attractive. Five hundred tons of weapons would require Iran to use 20 planes, which is more expensive and easier to track.

The weapons cache was huge - 500 tons - ten times the weapons seized by Israel in 2002 when they caught the Karine-A trying to smuggle 50 tons of weapons to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority. The weapons were also surrounded by bags filled with a substance making it difficult to scan. Obviously Israel acted on intelligence to track and seize this cargo.

While this definitely represents a blow to Hezbollah and Iran, financially, diplomatically and militarily, Hezbollah still possesses a prodigious amount of weapons. Some estimates put their arsenal at 34,000 rockets. That's more rockets than Hezbollah had in its possession before the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

Israel may have won this round, but it's just one more chapter in the ongoing Israeli-Iranian war. Given Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, the next round could potentially be a lot bigger.

Huckabee Says Obama Administration "Abandoning" Israel

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:31:17 GMT

Mike Huckabee says the Obama administration's Middle East policy is leading to an "abandoning" of Israel. watch his comments below and trancription afterwards.

Huckabee: I'm especially grieved at what's happening with the policy toward Israel. We are abandoning the only real ally and friend we have in the Middle East, and we're doing it in order to court really a thug, rogue, terrorist government like the Palestinians who are led by a person who helped clear the finances for the Munich bombing.

This is completely inexplicable to me. And I'm very concerned that that's going to create a further destabilization of a very delicate Middle East.

Huckabee's List of Likes and Dislikes When it Comes to President Obama

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:25:17 GMT

What does Mike Huckabee like about President Obama? And what does he dislike about his policies?

Watch his answer below. Huckabee stopped by our D.C. studios this morning.

HUCKABEE: I think that he has at least modeled an exemplary role as a husband and as a father. And I do appreciate that. I think that sometimes conservatives try to say that everything the man does is wrong, we can't find anything right about him. That's unfair, it's unfortunate, and I think it frankly is the reason that politics gets so polarizing.

I certainly can appreciate that he has a good relationship, in fact a wonderful relationship, with his wife and with his daughters. He spends time with them. He gives us a good role model as a husband and father. As somebody who believes the family unit is critical to our nation's future, I genuinely appreciate that and think he ought to be applauded for it.

The things that are disappointing are on the policy side. I really hoped that he was serious when he said there would be transparency, that there was going to be this sense of putting the bills on the Internet for five days for people to read them before he signed them. That we weren't going to deficit-spend, we weren't going to raise taxes on the middle class, that we weren't going to put undue burdens on small businesses.

Unfortunately, we're doing all of that. And then from a standpoint of national security, I'm especially grieved at what's happening with the policy toward Israel.

We are abandoning the only real ally and friend we have in the Middle East, and we're doing it in order to court really a thug, rogue, terrorist government like the Palestinians who are led by a person who helped clear the finances for the Munich bombing.

This is completely inexplicable to me. And I'm very concerned that that's going to create a further destabilization of a very delicate Middle East.

Huckabee's Message to his Supporters

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:17:32 GMT

Mike Huckabee isn't saying whether he'll run for President in 2012 but he has a message for his supporters. Watch part of my oen on one interview with him below and the transcription follows.

BRODY: What is your message to them in terms of what you may do in the future?

HUCKABEE: Well, it's not so much about what I'm going to do. What I would tell them to do is use your energy for the 2010 races.

Go help Mark O'Rubio in Florida become the next United States senator down there: a true conservative, pro-life, wonderful person who could to me be the leader of our party out there in the future.

Look at a race that's in your community, whether it's for school board or city council or state representative or Congress or the United States Senate. Get behind a candidate who's a strong, pro-life candidate in those arenas and get that person elected.

We'll worry about 2012 after 2010. But let's keep the focus on the next foot in front of us, not three feet in front of us.

Huckabee on GOP Party: Big Tent "Shouldn't Have Holes in the Ceiling"

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:11:55 GMT

Mike Huckabee tells The Brody File that this "big tent" philosophy within the GOP has its limits. Huckabee spoke with me this morning in our D.C. studios. Watch his comments below and get the transcription after that.

BRODY:There's been a lot of talk about how the GOP's now at a crossroads. This big tent philosophy and can a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage type GOP candidate welcome within the Republican Party? What's the answer to that?

HUCKABEE: It's okay for the tent to be big, but the tent shouldn't have holes in the ceiling. And what the party bosses -- those 11 people who picked Dede Scozzafava did was put somebody in place who was more liberal than 80 percent of Congress. And that didn't make any sense.

She really wasn't philosophically even close to being a Republican. This was an ACORN-backed, union-backed, pro-same sex marriage, pro-abortion person who just didn't look like even a semblance of the Republican Party.

It was, I think, not so much a defeat for the Republican Party. It was an affirmation that the conservative movement is really the only home for Republicans.

And that doesn't mean they have to be in lockstep on every issue. But they have to have at least one or two things that give them some connection with the Republicans. Dede did not.

Huckabee Warns Democrats

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:05:36 GMT

Democrats beware. That's the message from 2008 Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee who told The Brody File the Democratic Party better be careful what they push or they'll be out of power pretty quickly.

Watch below. Transcription follows the video.

HUCKABEE: I think the big story was the break of Independents two-to-one against the incumbent, against the Democrat.

And if that doesn't send a message to the Democrats in Congress who are now looking to push cap and trade and the health care bill -- if they're not seeing that, a lot of them need to take a good look around this December and see the Capitol Christmas lights, because it's going to be the last Christmas they spend as a congressman in Washington, D.C.

Huckabee Says President Bears Some Responsibility For Election Losses

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:00:13 GMT

Mike Huckabee tells The Brody File that President Obama bears some responsibility for the Election losses in New Jersey and Virginia.

I spoke with the 2008 Republican presidential contender this morning in our D.C. bureau. Watch his answer below. Comments follow.

BRODY: Do you believe these wins by the GOP in New Jersey and Virginia were a referendum on the President? How do you view this exactly?

HUCKABEE: Well, they certainly were a referendum on the policies of the Democrats in Washington. Now, the President has some responsibility. He went to New Jersey five times for Corzine and campaigned for Deeds.So he wrapped himself with his own political capital.

But it's not just about Obama. It's about the larger issue of what's happening in Washington with overspending, government control, intrusion into people's personal choices: it was a huge blowback because of the margin in Virginia and the very fact of the victory in New Jersey.

Mike Huckabee on The 700 Club

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:02:33 GMT

Mike Huckabee appeared on The 700 Club this morning. He has a new book out called, "A Simple Christmas".

Watch his interview below.

Evangelical Vote in Virginia

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:59:12 GMT

No surprise here but White Evangelical voters supported Bob McDonnell big time in Virginia. The group, "Faith and Freedom Coalition" played an important role in getting out the Evangelical vote.

It turns out White Evangelicals made up 34% of the vote in Virginia and they went 83%-17% for McDonnell.

To give you some perspective, John McCain won 73% of the Evangelical vote in 2008 and George W. Bush won 78% in 2004.

For Gay Community, 0-31 and Counting?

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:31:09 GMT

This is a somber day for gay activists.

On Tuesday, the voters of Maine rejected same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

Get out your scorecard. That makes 31 states now where voters have said 'no way" to gay marriage in their state. Gay Activists are 0-31. I calculate that percentage as .000. Someone double check the math.

Look, the homosexual community will not give this fight up. if you think they will then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

But that 0-31 figure is a cold hard reality.

While the gay community will liken this battle to a civil rights push (aren't African-Americans insulted by that?) have they ever thought about the fact that maybe the majority of Americans simply want marriage to be between a man and a woman? Shudder at the thought of that!!! You know this idea that if you believe in a traditional view of marriage then you are a bigot or homophobic or not "hip and with it" is really utterly preposterous.

With Hoffman Race, GOP Party at Crossroads

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:21:48 GMT

Doug Hoffman may have lost but conservatives across the country won. Hoffman's candidacy along with the moderate GOP candidate dropping out of the race showed that real conservatives can make a difference. BUT...there is a lot of work to do.

First of all, conservatives complain all the time about RINO's (Republicans in Name Only) like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, etc. They don't want to see the Republican Party cater to these folks and just win elections for the sake of winning an election with an "R" next to their name. But if you really want to purge GOP moderates from the party, you better do a better job of selling this brand of conservatism to the electorate.

Let's face facts: there may be plenty of conservative voters out there who listen and agree with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Laura Ingram but unless they show up at the polls as a huge voting block then so what? The brainy people behind any GOTV (Get Out The Vote) operation, whether through official GOP channels or through the conservative grassroots must figure out a way to actually get traditional conservatives to show up and vote in droves because here's the harsh reality. If you're going to lose potential moderate "big tent" type Republican votes, you better make up that gap and more. Otherwise minority status will be cemented. Conservative leaders can beat their chest about the Hoffman appeal and philosophically say they won but who cares if your not winning elections to change the public policy you complain about.

There's one other crucial factor. If conservative candidates are going to win, you have to have the correct type of candidate. For example, Ronald Reagan was a die-hard conservative but he didn't come across as a fire-breathing angry guy. He had a natural and sensible appeal that went beyond his conservative policies. You can't expect to run a Tom Tancredo type candidate and expect a conservative to win district after district. It may work in select districts but it is not a national strategy.

Were Losses in VA and NJ a Referendum on President Obama?

David Brody — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:02:08 GMT

Even though Republicans had big wins in New Jersey and Virginia, that doesn't necessarily translate into a referendum on President Obama. However, it actually has deeper significance. With the 2010 midterm elections about to suddenly creep up on all of us quickly, the Democratic Party is going to have to somehow figure a way to keep Independent voters from pulling the lever for Republicans. On Tuesday night, to put it simply it was a jail break. Independents went 58% to 33% for Christie over Corzine. In Virginia it was even a bigger beat down. McDonnell won Independents 65% to 34%. Democratic officials can spin and put out all the press releases they want citing how these races were local in nature but the message from Tuesday is that Independents seem to be leaning toward the GOP. That's bad news for the Democrats and could lead to a 2010 that feels a whole lot worse than Tuesday.

Look, there's no doubt that Christie and McDonnell ran great campaigns. There is a lesson in that. Republicans just can't put up any old candidate and expect to swing Independents their way. But if they put up conservative candidates who focus in on the problems of too much government and fiscal spending that winning combo is going to be powerful. The Obama White House believed they had a strong mandate for change when they took over in January and while that may be true, sometimes pushing too much of a big government agenda (bailout, GM takeover, Stimulus, healthcare reform, etc) and doing it pretty quickly can lead Independent voters to get a little wary and anxious over the ultimate end point. I'm not saying that Independents in New Jersey and Virginia were directly casting their votes based on this but what I am saying is that fiscal discipline and a big government agenda are a potentially toxic mix when you are dealing with Independent voters.

Also, Republicans should take note of McDonnell's strategy in Virginia. He courted Hispanics. He was not afraid to engage on the immigration issue and let's remember Hispanics are very family oriented which should be a natural play for Republicans. For that matter, Republicans need to figure out a way to truly appeal to African-Americans. They won't get a majority of the vote but they could sure do better than they are doing now.

In New Jersey, the Republican won even though Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans in the state. That's a hard pill for President Obama and this White House to swallow considering the President invested a good amount of time in the race. While Corzine's loss shouldn't be seen as a direct referendum on President Obama, it should be duly noted that the Presidents coattails aren't huge like they were a year ago.

Analysis of Election Day and President Obama

David Brody — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:36:14 GMT

Watch my analysis of what these off year elections mean when it comes to President Obama.

Where Do You Run?

Jackie Overpeck — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:54:16 GMT

Where do you run when you need help?

Do you call your boyfriend and pour your heart out to him? Do you ask your Mom or Dad to listen? Or maybe you prefer to be alone in your room, where you can log onto Facebook, post your problems on your wall -- and see if your friends may have the answers you need?

A few years ago, I was faced with a situation where I needed help. I did all of the above. I asked everyone except God. Usually, I go to God first. But this time my problem seemed so overwhelming that I instinctively ran to the physical things that I could touch or see with my natural senses.

What’s the problem with that approach? It’s not grounded in faith. Yes, it’s fine to go to the people around us who love us, but first we must run by faith to God. People come and go; people are not always there. Even our parents as much as they may love us are not always around.

When my father and my mother forsake me, Then the LORD will take care of me. Teach me Your way, O LORD, And lead me in a smooth path… (Psalm 27:10-11, KJV).

A man who has friends must himself be friendly, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. (Proverbs 18:24).

We need a constant Source of help. A place we can run where our Comforter never turns away and our Guide never departs. We need a Helper who can always be found. One whose love is steady and forgiveness is strong. We need God.

We need God for life itself. We need Him on the days when we are popular and we need Him on the days when all of our friends are gone. We need God during nights that are filled with frustration and tears, and we need Him on nights that are filled with laughter.

James 4:8 encourages, Draw near to God and He will draw near to you (NKJV).

I like the way The Message puts it:

So let God work his will in you. Yell a loud "No" to the Devil and watch him scamper. Say a quiet "Yes" to God and he'll be there in no time. Quit dabbling in sin. Purify your inner life. Quit playing the field. Hit bottom, and cry your eyes out. The fun and games are over. Get serious, really serious. Get down on your knees before the Master; it's the only way you'll get on your feet. (James 4:7-10)

What keeps you from running to God? Will you try running to Him with a heart full of faith the next time you need help?

~ Jackie O.

Abortion Language in House Bill

David Brody — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:52:25 GMT

The Brody File thought it would be a good idea to post the sections of the House healthcare reform bill that deal with abortion. I will pray for you before you read it because politicians put it together which means good luck trying to understand all the legislative morse code and hocus pocus.

The sections are below. I have also provided a picture of me trying to read the bill.

7 (e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF
8 MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—
9 (1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—
10 The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not
11 recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
12 may not adopt in standards under section 224(b),
13 the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B)
14 as part of the essential benefits package and the
15 Commissioner may not require such services for
16 qualified health benefits plans to participate in the
17 Health Insurance Exchange.

18 (2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY
19 PLAN.—In the case of a qualified health benefits
20 plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under
21 this Act from providing coverage of services de22
scribed in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the
23 QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such
24 coverage is provided.

1 (3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSUR2
ANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option
3 shall provide coverage for services described in para4
graph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed
5 as preventing the public health insurance option
6 from providing for or prohibiting coverage of serv7
ices described in paragraph (4)(A).

8 (4) ABORTION SERVICES.—
9 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND10
ING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in
11 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
12 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
13 the Department of Health and Human Services
14 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
15 as of the date that is 6 months before the be16
ginning of the plan year involved.

17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND18
ING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
21 the Department of Health and Human Services
22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin24
ning of the plan year involved.

GARDING ABORTION.
5 (a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING
6 ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
7 preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regard8
ing the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, fund9
ing, or procedural requirements on abortions, including
10 parental notification or consent for the performance of an
11 abortion on a minor.

12 (b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING
13 ABORTION.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be
15 construed to have any effect on Federal laws regard16
ing—
17 (A) conscience protection;
18 (B) willingness or refusal to provide abor19
tion; and
20 (C) discrimination on the basis of the will21
ingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or
22 refer for abortion or to provide or participate in
23 training to provide abortion.

24 (c) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.—
25 Nothing in this section shall alter the rights and obliga-
1 tions of employees and employers under title VII of the
2 Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3 SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RE4
SPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
5 (a) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency or pro6
gram, and any State or local government that receives
7 Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amend8
ment made by this Act), may not—
9 (1) subject any individual or institutional health
10 care entity to discrimination; or
11 (2) require any health plan created or regulated
12 under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
13 to subject any individual or institutional health care
14 entity to discrimination,
15 on the basis that the health care entity does not provide,
16 pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
17 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘health
18 care entity’’ includes an individual physician or other
19 health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored
20 organization, a health maintenance organization, a health
21 insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility,
22 organization, or plan.

18 (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVI19
SION OF ABORTION.—No Exchange participating health
20 benefits plan may discriminate against any individual
21 health care provider or health care facility because of its
22 willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide
23 coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(3) PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
12 FOR ABORTION COVERAGE.—An affordability credit
13 may not be used for payment for services described
14 in section 222(d)(4)(A).

16 (c) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LONGITU17
DINAL STUDY OF RELATIVE MENTAL HEALTH CON18
SEQUENCES FOR WOMEN OF RESOLVING A PREG19
NANCY.—
20 (1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of
21 the Congress that the Director of the National Insti22
tute of Mental Health may conduct a nationally rep23
resentative longitudinal study (during the period of
24 fiscal years 2011 through 2020) on the relative men25
tal health consequences for women of resolving a
1 pregnancy (intended and unintended) in various
2 ways, including carrying the pregnancy to term and
3 parenting the child, carrying the pregnancy to term
4 and placing the child for adoption, miscarriage, and
5 having an abortion. This study may assess the inci6
dence, timing, magnitude, and duration of the imme7
diate and long-term mental health consequences
8 (positive or negative) of these pregnancy outcomes.
9 (2) REPORT.—Beginning not later than 3 years
10 after the date of the enactment of this Act, and peri11
odically thereafter for the duration of the study,
12 such Director may prepare and submit to the Con13
gress reports on the findings of the study.
14 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

1 ‘‘SEC. 804. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED
2 TO INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
3 ‘‘Any limitation on the use of funds contained in an
4 Act providing appropriations for the Department for a pe5
riod with respect to the performance of abortions shall
6 apply for that period with respect to the performance of
7 abortions using funds contained in an Act providing ap8
propriations for the Service.

Make Your Financial Investments "Terror-Free"

Erick Stakelbeck — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:48:29 GMT

I did a story for CBN News back in June about the possibility of sanctions against the Iranian regime, and how shutting off imports of refined gas to Iran could have major repercussions for Ahmadenijad and the mullahs. In researching for the piece, I learned that four of the five companies supplying Iran with these vital shipments of refined gas were European. I wondered why the U.S. didn't just cut these compaines off and refuse to do business with them until they severed ties with Iran.

Mark Langerman had a similar thought. Only he's turned his thoughts into action. Langerman, an Arizona-based financial planner, is spearheading what he hopes is a growing trend: terror-free investments. His new financial management firm, Empowerment Financial Group, helps clients avoid investing in companies that do business with state sponsors of terrorism like Iran, Syria, North Korea and Sudan.

'We believe that we have a tangible solution to help people fight the economic war on terror," says Langerman, who launched the company along with partner Paul Seidman. "This is a bottom-up, grassroots movement."

Langerman says some 586 companies do business with state sponsors of terrorism, including 21 of them in the U.S. He adds that If these companies had their access to the U.S. financial market--the world's largest--cut off, the impact would be devastating enough that they would be forced to reconsider their business dealings with America's enemies.

Langerman hopes this terror-free investing initiative will catch on like other recent movements, including divestment from South Africa over apartheid and the "green" push for tougher enviornmental regulations.

"20 years ago, you would have been hard-pressed to find companies with environmental regulations--now it's the norm," he says. "We hope the same thing can happen, over time, with terror free investing."

The portfolios of EFG clients are screened and certified terror-free by an independent research provider on a quarterly basis. The comany is working towards establishing a mutual fund that is terror-free.

"By starting this firm, I decided to put my money where my mouth is," says Langeman. "Every American can make a difference in the economic war on terror."

So what are you waiting for?

Tired of Trying to Save Your Marriage?

Dr. David Hawkins — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:47:55 GMT

“She doesn’t see anything she’s done to cause this divorce,” a middle-aged man complained to me recently. “She can’t see how her leaving caused everything to go wrong in our marriage.”

Clearly angry and hurt over his wife’s recent request for a separation, Darin was caught up in his own pain and seemingly oblivious to what he had done to contribute to their marital problems. He sat in front of me now hoping I could perform a miracle in their marriage.

“Why did she leave?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” he said. “Karen hasn’t been happy in our marriage for a long time. But, I can’t figure her out. Mid-life crisis, I guess.”

“Sounds like a lot more than a mid-life crisis,” I said. “You said she’s been unhappy for a long time.”

“Yeah,” Darin said slowly, considering my words. “But, she’s never told me exactly what she wants me to do differently. How am I supposed to know what she wants?”

“Well, you’re not supposed to read her mind,” I said. “However, you are supposed to listen carefully to her. I wonder if your wife has told you many times, in many different ways, what she needs, and you haven’t really been listening?”

Darin winced at my words. I watched in silence as he considered the possibility.

“She says she’s told me, but I don’t really think she has,” Darin said softly.

Darin was in genuine pain. His marriage of 25 years seemed to be slipping out of his grasp. A long-term marriage, three grown children, a lovely home, and a pile of dreams for his later years were all drifting away. This was all because his wife was unhappy, and he didn’t see the warning signs.

I never met Karen. She wouldn’t come in because, in her words, she was finished. She was exhausted from:

Trying to make her husband be sensitive to her needs;
Trying to make him listen to her;
Trying to create adventure and excitement in their marriage;
Trying to make him participate fully in parenting their children;
Trying to make him stop getting angry;
Trying to make him participate in her church and faith life.

Simply put, Karen was tired. She had lost hope that Darin would change. She had lost hope that he would become interested in her life. She wanted someone who would not only care about her life, but would champion her desires and goals. She didn’t want to beg him to read the books on improving their communication. She wanted him to seek out those books on his own and take initiative to change.

“I’m going to sit back and watch,” Karen said to me. “I’m not coming to counseling unless I see a real change in him. I’m not sure I have anything left in me to give.”

I gave Darin the bad news about Karen’s decision not to come to counseling. Initially annoyed and angry, I encouraged him not to take a victim stance, but to take initiative now to reinvent himself. There would be no guarantee that she would come back to him, but she had offered a glimmer of hope when she said she would “wait and see.” The rest would be up to Darin.

We agreed to take things one step at a time in counseling. While he couldn’t make Karen come back to him, he could increase his chances by considering what she had been trying to tell him for years. We agreed to:

First, consider what Karen had been trying to say for years. I asked Darin to keep a journal and recall everything she had been saying. He recalled the times she had angrily stated she wanted more affection, as well as, times when she withdrew in frustration from having to do more than her share of work around the house. Slowly, he created a list of issues that became the road map for our work. Journaling caused Darin to "tune in" to Karen in new ways.

Second, remember why Karen fell in love with him. Darin made out a list of those positive traits that initially drew Karen to him, such as being adventurous and daring, and to redevelop those traits. He would have to cultivate being a caring, attentive man, with very limited opportunities to show those changes due to their separation. Still, character change in us is revealed over time, I assured him.

Third, focus on himself. While it was tempting to become angry and bitter about Karen leaving him, we focused on using this crisis as an opportunity for growth. I reminded Darin that Karen would be watching for long-lasting, depth change—not short-term, cosmetic changes. Darin would come to understand the virtue of patience during this crisis.

Fourth, pray for Karen. We agreed that Darin would not simply pray for Karen to come back to him—which was his selfish request—but that she find healing for the wounds she suffered in their marriage. Darin would need to practice “letting go, and letting God.”

Fifth, apologize and make amends. Because of their separation Darin had limited opportunities to show he was sorry for neglecting his wife. Yet, in small ways—a card here and there—he was able to convey he was sorry and was determined to become a better man. He became sensitive to Karen, even through their distance, in allowing her the space she needed to consider her choices.

Finally, trust in God’s sovereignty. For as much as I wanted to give Darin positive feedback, he had to face the fact that Karen might not come back to him. Tempted to see God as a genie in a bottle, I reminded him that God promised never to leave him—not necessarily to answer every prayer just the way he wanted. There might be painful consequences to his actions, but surely God would make “all things work together for good.” (Romans 8: 28)

Share your feedback or send a confidential note to me at therelationshipdoctor@gmail.com and read more about The Marriage Recovery Center on my Web site, www.marriagerecoverycenter.com and yourrelationshipdoctor.com. You’ll find videos and podcasts on saving a troubled marriage, codependency, rejection by your mate, and affair-proofing your marriage.

Ralph Reed's New Faith Coalition Ready to Fly High

David Brody — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:26:49 GMT

Ralph Reed is making his mark...again..

The former head of the Christian Coalition is taking an extremely active role in the Virginia Governor's race. His group, the "Faith and Freedom Coalition" was out in force this weekend knocking on doors armed with voter guides that focus on faith and family issues. Reed was actually out there himself knocking on doors with the rest of the volunteers this weekend in Richmond. Watch the video of Reed knocking on doors below:

In addition, the Virginia chapter of his group got GOP heavyweights Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin to record get out the vote messages this past weekend.

Lusten to Sarah Palin's call here

Mike Huckabee's call is here

This is just the beginning for the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Get ready to hear much more about them across the country as the midterm elections get rolling. And in 2012? Watch out. Call it a Brody File hunch but something tells me that Ralph Reed and his group are poised to be a MAJOR player. The key is always mobilization. Conservative Christians are numerous but if they are non-existant at the ballot box then it doesn't mean anything.

Below is their philosophy, goals and principles:

We believe that the greatness of America lies not in the federal government but in the character of our people — the simple virtues of faith, hard work, marriage, family, personal responsibility, and helping the least among us. If we lose sight of these values, America will cease to be great.

Never before has it been more critical for us to speak out for these values. That is why the Faith and Freedom Coalition is committed to educating, equipping, and mobilizing people of faith and like-minded individuals to be effective citizens. Together we will influence public policy and enact legislation that strengthens families, promotes time-honored values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, lowers the tax burden on small business and families, and requires government to tighten its belt and live within its means.

Our Principles

Respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, family, and marriage as the foundations of a free society

Limited government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility to unleash the creative energy of entrepreneurs

Education reform that puts children first

Help the poor, the needy, and those who have been left behind

Free markets and free minds to create opportunity for all

Victory in the struggle with terrorism and tyranny while supporting our democratic allies, including Israel

Our Goals

Mobilize and train people of faith to be effective citizens

Speak out in the public arena and in the media on behalf of common-sense values

Influence legislation and enact sound public policy at every level of government

Train citizens for effective civic action

Protest bigotry and discrimination against people of faith

Abortion Funding in Health Bill Could Derail Effort

David Brody — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:05:36 GMT

The Washington Post is out with a story today about how the healthcare refomr bill could go down in flames in the House if the abortion funding language isn't changed.

Hey, Washington Post. I've been saying that now for a few months. Let me repeat it one more time: If The White House and Democratic leaders don't change the abortion language then they seriously run the risk of not getting healthcare reform through this year. Look, this is a numbers game. With all House Republicans set to vote against the bill, Nancy Pelosi can not afford 40 or so House Democrats to defect over the abortion issue. That may happen if something is not changed.

The Washington Post article is below:

While House leaders are moving toward a vote on health-care legislation by the end of the week, enough Democrats are threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to create a question about its passage.

House leaders were still negotiating Monday with the bloc of Democrats concerned about abortion provisions in the legislation, saying that they could lead to public funding of the procedure. After an evening meeting of top House Democrats, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) said, "We are making progress," but added that they had not reached an agreement.

The outcome of those talks could be crucial in deciding the fate of the health-care bill. Democrats need the vast majority of their caucus to back the bill, since nearly all congressional Republicans have said they will oppose the legislation.

"I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation — enough to derail the bill.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cast Stupak as "attempting to ban abortion coverage in the private insurance market."

Evangelicals and Rabbis Unite Against Nuclear Iran

Erick Stakelbeck — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:05:32 GMT

Iran is once again making a mockery of its negotiations with the West, first agreeing, then backtracking, on an agreement to have its uranium shipped overseas for enrichment. (a move that, oddly enough, would only buy the Iranian nuke program more time in the long run) This ongoing diplomatic debacle is another harsh reminder that Iran is steeped in taqqiya--or deception--the Islamic concept that justifies lying to non-believers. The Iranians have shown time and again that they simply cannot be trusted as honest partners in any serious negotiations.

It's long past time that the Obama administration got tough with the Iranians. Enough carrots: there needs to be some heavy sticks applied here to convince Iran that nuclear weapons are a no-go. One potent way to do that is through economic sanctions. As I reported on CBN News back in June, there is a bi-partisan groundswell of support in Congress for serious sanctions against Iran that would, among other things, cut off imports of refined gas to the Islamic Republic. Support for such santions not only transcends political parties; it also transcends faiths.

Leaders of the New York Evangelicals and the New York Board of Rabbis, along with the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, have joined together to urge the international community to enact crippling sanctions against the Iranian regime that would make Iran pay a heavy price for its continued dirve towards nuclear weapons. You can read their "Stop Nuclear Iran" resolution here. As you'lll see, it lays out ten reasons for tough sanctions that are undeniable and compelling.

It is heartening to see Christians and Jews working together on such an important initiative. As we've reported frequently on CBN News, such cooperation is a growing and welcome trend.

The time for sanctions is right now. The Iranians, according to various intelligence estimates, could have a nuclear device by 2010. The recent revelation that Iran has a hidden nuclear facility outside Qom just raised the stakes even higher. The Israelis can't wait much longer to avert a potential second Holocaust.