A Massachusetts judge's decision last Monday in Boston shows the folly of trusting an Executive Order on abortion over a statute that does not limit abortion. The case of the ACLU v. Health and Human Services involves Congress' Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
Since 2001 the Act has ordered HHS to spend about $10 million a year to "expand benefits and services to victims of severe forms of [sexual] trafficking." HHS agreed, however, to disperse the money in such a way that the money could not be spent on abortion or contraception because the Catholic church is the best contractor to handle these cases.
The ACLU sued HHS, arguing that the statute's funding for victim services can't exclude abortion or contraception. This week, the judge denied HHS's motion to dismiss and ordered the case to proceed.
If the statute had directed or even authorized HHS to exclude abortion from the spending, there would be nothing to challenge. But a mere executive branch decision not to fund abortion under such a statute is simply a legal challenge waiting to happen.
An Executive Order can be revoked. More important: the Executive Order cannot trump the statute it is interpreting. The federal courts are not only ready to hear those challenges, they are eager to rule in favor of abortion advocates.
We appreciate Matt Bowman's analysis. Matt is with the Alliance Defense Fund.
Round one to Pelosi, Obama, and Reid.
We must keep up the heat. Keep educating everyone you know. Your good work will make a difference in November! Thank you, Anne
PS The "benefits" are not supposed to kick in yet. Do you know anyone who is retired and still has any company health benefits like prescription drugs or help with premiums? The Wall Street Journal report what is happening to those people.
No comments:
Post a Comment