Remembering Terri Schiavo...

...Five Years Ago This Week*

---

The culture of death advances

By Patrick J. Buchanan
© 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc

On Good Friday, as Terri Schiavo lay dying of thirst in Woodside Hospice, Gabriel Keys took her a cup of water. Gabriel was arrested, handcuffed and taken away.

Apparently, no one taught Gabriel that you do not disobey a judge's order, even to bring water to someone dying of thirst. As he is 10 years old, he is probably not yet conversant with the new morality, where a corporal work of mercy can be a crime. Perhaps his parents filled his mind with such subversive texts as, "Whoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones, a cup of cold water" shall not lose eternal life.

Before this column appears, Terri Schiavo may well be dead. If so, another milestone will have been passed in the long retreat of Western Civilization from a Christian-rooted culture of life to the pagan culture of death of pre-Christian Rome.

For Terri Schiavo will not have died a natural death. She will have been put to death by the state. The coroner's report should read: This was a state-sanctioned killing of a woman because she was brain-damaged, and the method of execution was by starvation and denial of water. These are methods most of us would protest if imposed on the Beltway snipers.

Why did Florida put Terri Schiavo to death? Because that was the demand of a husband who refused to divorce her and denied her medical care, while he lived with another woman. Michael Schiavo is the ACLU poster boy for family values.

In the Old Testament, King Solomon ruled that the mother who had been willing to give up her baby to the woman who had kidnapped the child rather than see the baby cut in half should have the child. Our Florida Solomon ruled that the husband who wanted Terri dead should have custody of her, not the parents who wanted her alive.

"Should Congress have intervened?" is an issue that has divided conservatives. But conservatives are constitutionalists. Under the Constitution, no person may be deprived of life without due process of law. This has traditionally meant a trial of one's peers, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous crime and no cruel or unusual punishment. Though she committed no crime, Terri was put to death in a manner most decent men and women would not use to put a suffering animal out of its misery.

Most conservatives believe in a God who is the Author of Life and has given us the laws by which we must live. Among the first of these is that we must not shed innocent blood. For that is forbidden by the teachings of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and the laws of all the civilizations erected on these faiths. In all nations, killing of the innocent is the most despicable of crimes. Done on a vast scale, these are what were called at the Nuremberg trials, "crimes against humanity."

Americans must face a hard truth. The state of Florida put Terri Schiavo to death. Before Holy Week, she was neither dead nor dying. For 15 years, she had been cared for by nurses and visited by loving parents. She was not dying until the judge ordered her dead, by ordering her feeding tube removed. Then it has taken her nearly two weeks to die, as he blocked the reinsertion of the feeding tube and ordered police to prevent anyone from giving her water.

When the courts failed Terri, and Congress and the Florida Legislature failed Terri, the governor of Florida, who took an oath to defend the constitutional rights of Florida's citizens, should have taken custody of Terri, ordered the tube reinserted and let the federal courts proceed with the de novo hearing of the evidence, while Terri was still alive.

When Gov. John Peter Altgeld of Illinois came to believe that those convicted of murder in the infamous Haymarket Massacre of 1886 were innocent, that a judicial outrage had been committed, he pardoned them. "I am a dead man politically," he told Clarence Darrow.

Jeb Bush should have done the same thing, the right thing. He should have rescued Terri from the death sentence unjustly imposed upon her. If the court held him in contempt, so what? Who does not hold that Florida court in contempt?

From abortion on demand in 1973, to a right to die in Oregon, to a right to suicide in Holland, to involuntary euthanasia in the old folks homes on the old and dying continent of Europe, to America's death sentence for Terri Schiavo, the West advances steadily toward its own death.

As we find more and more justifications for ending life, we also find that not one Western nation has a native-born population that is growing. All are dying. Before century's end, the West ends, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Not with a bang, but a whimper."

Its interesting that this same week, four years (and now five) after Terri Schiavo's senseless death,Assisted Suicide is approved in several states, Harry Reid wants abortion covered under a National Socialized Healthcare plan, and Joe Biden is given an A-plus rating on his treatment of animals...("change" we can believe in?)...keith 1 Cor 13

*I first published this a little over a year ago... With all the attention recently on government "healthcare" I thought I would re-post this article. The way our courts treated Terri should be a warning of things to come under a government run plan.

What John Wesley so aptly said about slavery, still applies today"Where is the justice in inflicting the severist of evils on those who have done us no wrong?"

Obama's ‘New’" Health Care Plan" Would Use Tax Dollars to Pay for Abortions

CNSNews.com

Monday, February 22, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama unveiled his plan for health care reform on whitehouse.gov on Monday, but pro-life legislators and advocates said the “new” proposal mostly mirrors the Senate bill and, in particular, would allow for tax dollars to be used to fund health plans that cover abortion. “The health bill passed by the Senate in December (H.R. 3590) had become, by the conclusion of the Senate amendment process, the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade,” Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said in a statement issued on Monday.

Johnson said Obama’s bill will not include the same prohibitions set forth in the Stupak amendment--named after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)--which was part of the health care legislation passed earlier by the House of Representatives. Instead, Obama’s bill allows federal funds to subsidize abortions through the structuring of programs and insurance plans.

“If all of the President's changes were made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion-on-demand through community health centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion-on-demand, including some federally administered plans, and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion,” Douglas said.

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio points out changes in the Senate health care bill during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2009 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the release of Obama’s health care proposal ahead of Thursday’s televised discussion among the president, Democrats, and select Republicans could be counterproductive. He also said pro-life legislators are committed to creating legislation that reflects what Americans want in health care reform. “Republicans are also standing with the American people by calling for health care reform to protect human life and not use taxpayer money to fund abortion,” Boehner said in a statement. “The Republican bill would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion, which the President’s proposal would allow.” “Pro-life Democrats in the House have already pledged to vote against this provision,” said Boehner. “Health care reform should be an opportunity to protect human life--not end it--and the American people agree.” When asked about the issue by ABC’s Jake Tapper at Monday’s press briefing at the White House, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president does not want to pay for abortions but does not want to limit women’s choices. “And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions," Gibbs said. "And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test---that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices….” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said that with today’s release of the president’s health care plan, he can no longer say it is Congress that is promoting federally funded abortions. “Every time President Obama’s spokesmen are asked about the Senate health care bill that authorizes federal funds for abortion, they reply that none of the bills put forth are the president’s own,” Donohue said. “Moreover, the president has said that he would never sign a health care bill that funds abortion.”
“While it is true that the pro-abortion camp will not be happy with the president for not striking some restrictions it deplores, the fact remains that President Obama could have adopted the pro-life friendly language of the House bill,” Donohue said. “The fact that he didn’t is what matters most.”

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

Do We Really Believe People are Lost?

Do We Really Believe People are Lost?

A Three part series by Keith Kiper

It seems live in a day and time when everything around us is relative. Things that were once considered to be settled black and white issues have blended into areas of gray. Even certain mainline church denominations endorse lifestyles that are contrary to what the Bible teaches about sin and sinful living.
Much of today’s generation could be considered Biblically illiterate, especially when it comes to the matter of a literal heaven and a literal hell. We hear a lot about heaven in our popular culture. After all dogs do go there, don’t they? Most people would tell us they want to go there, even if not right now. It seems we don’t hear much about hell anymore. Sometimes we will hear someone tell another person they should go there. Most would believe that someone like Adolf Hitler should be there. My biggest concern today is that I am afraid that we as the church have neglected what the Bible says about the matter. Scripture doesn’t leave any doubts about who will someday be there.

The subjects of Heaven and hell are often referred to as “last things.” Our Wesleyan Discipline lists these under Basic Principles...
” Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ’s presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Christ Jesus. Hell with its everlasting misery and separation from God is the final abode of those who neglect this great salvation.” Discipline 2000/ Section 250

Let us look at what the Bible says about heaven and hell. Many theologians will often use these various methods to examine something to consider whether or not it is true. These would include reason, history, experience, and of course Scripture. This is often referred to as The Wesleyan Quadrilateral. I would like to use some of these as we take a look at heaven and hell today. We have different church denominations and political parties today. This is because people have certain beliefs and ideas which they consider important. Many times they believe there is no other way but their way. Sometimes this is true when placed under the light of the Bible. Sometimes we can be wrong, even when we are so sure we are right. Listen to what happened recently in Sarasota Florida.

"An elderly Florida lady did her shopping, and upon returning to her car, found four males in the act of leaving her vehicle. She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun. She screamed at the top of her lungs, I have a gun, and I know how to use it! Get out of the car!” The four men didn’t wait for a second threat. They got out and ran like mad. The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags into her car. She got into her car and was so shaken she couldn’t get her keys to work. Suddenly she realized why her keys wouldn’t work. It was the same reason she had wondered why there was a football, a Frisbee and two twelve packs of beer on the front seat. A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four or five spaces farther down. She loaded her bags into her car and drove to the police station to report her mistake. The police sergeant couldn’t stop laughing when he heard her story. He then pointed to the end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a car jacking by a short elderly woman, with glasses and white curly hair. She was also carrying a large handgun. No charges were filed. Moral of the story? If you are going to have a senior moment…make it worthwhile."

That says it all, doesn't it? The Barna Research Group recently compiled some recent numbers.

• Eight out of ten Americans (81%) believe in an afterlife of some sort. Ten percent believe there is no form of life after death.
• 79%, a large majority of Americans agreed with the statement "Every person has a soul that will live forever, either in God's presence or absence."
• Only one half of one percent expect to go to hell upon their death.

Interesting numbers when compared with what the Bible has to say about the matter aren't they? Much of this can be attributed to the absence of sound Biblically based preaching and the rise of entertaining "Sermonettes" in our churches today. Rev. Dr. Jack Van Impe recently said, "Sermonettes make Christianettes!" When the entire Bible is not taken literally, it only takes a generation or two to see the results. Next time in Part Two, we will be looking at what scripture says and some of the first hand experiences of others. I'll leave you with this verse:

"The Spirit makes it clear that as time goes on, some are going to give up on the faith and chase after demonic illusions put forth by professional liars. These liars have been lying so well and for so long that they've lost their capacity to tell the truth." 1 Titus 4:1-2 The Message

CNSNews.com

God to Palin: ‘You Go, Girl’
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
By Ben Shapiro
Listen to Commentary Podcasts

Over the weekend, former John McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt told “60 Minutes” something shocking about McCain’s former running mate, Sarah Palin. It seems that when Schmidt met Palin after McCain selected her, he was surprised that she was so calm. Schmidt apparently asked her how she could remain so tranquil in the face of such a monumental life change. She responded, “It’s God’s plan.”

Naturally, the media went bonkers over this revelation. The New York Times approvingly reported comic Jimmy Fallon’s one-liner: “God responded: ‘What? Really? Don’t bring me into this.’” The Week asked whether Palin was “simply devout—or delusional?” The Nation suggested that Palin was “a little bit dimmer than we thought.”

Nothing is quite as shocking to media establishment types as someone who actually believes that God takes an active part in individual human destinies.

If you thought the media’s reaction to this was absurd, think what their reaction would have been if they had been around during the days of Moses. One can envision the headlines from local newspapers: “Exiled Prince Claims God Sent Him to Free Slaves: Advisers Say Moses’ Staff Flying at Half-Mast.” (British newspapers would report it slightly differently: “Jewish Nut Job Invades Royal Palace On ‘God’s Mission’: Pharaoh Tells Him to go Jump in the Bloody Nile.”)

The truth is that it is a common article of faith in virtually all major religions that God guides the footsteps of each and every human being. Benjamin Franklin, a not-so-religious theologian, said that the American Revolution could be successful only with the direct help of God. As he put it, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

Yet nowadays, it is considered trite to point to the influence of God in human lives—unless you are liberal. Then it is considered perfectly normal. How many athletes do we see who thank God after each touchdown? How many actors who win Oscars thank God?

Even certain beloved socialist presidents believe in divine intervention on a personal scale. For example, when then-Sen. Barack Obama gave an anti-war speech, Sen. Harry Reid approached him to congratulate him. “That speech was phenomenal, Barack,” said Reid. Reid describes what happened next: “Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what I would describe as deep humility, he said quietly: ‘I have a gift, Harry.’”

It is worthwhile asking: a gift from whom? Gaia? Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny?

Clearly, even our atheistic President Obama—a man who avers that religious folk cling bitterly to their God because they’re poor and downtrodden—believes that occasionally, the Deity rests his hand on someone’s shoulder. Unfortunately, unlike Sarah Palin, Obama also believes that God’s presence is redundant to his own.

There’s a reason the media elites allow liberals to get away with God-talk. It’s because the media elites know that liberals aren’t particularly serious about their God-talk. Everyone could see Bill Clinton crossing his fingers behind his back when talking about God, just as everyone can see President Obama laughing behind his hand when he mentions religion.

It’s those benighted morons of the religious right who truly threaten the media elites. The right’s suggestion that God stands behind the vast flow of history scares the living daylights out of the liberal establishment because it threatens their own sense of control. After all, it is not God who made Barack Obama president of the United States—it is the editorial board of the New York Times. And it was not God who discarded Hillary Clinton like a used tissue—it was the brilliant men and women of the alphabet networks.

If the media elites are wrong—if God is indeed a driving factor in history—then things may not go as the media elites plan. Sarah Palin may indeed meet with success rather than media-ordained failure. The tea parties may indeed become a mainstream movement, rather than the fringe movement the media wishes them to be.

And that scares liberals. Because in the liberal view, no divine presence can be directing things. For the left, the only gods behind history are the gods of economics (see Thomas Friedman and Karl Marx), multiculturalism (see John Dewey), genes (see Richard Dawkins) and environment (see Al Gore and Jared Diamond).

Here’s a newsflash for liberals: Incredible as it may seem, Palin’s view represents that of the vast majority of mankind. People across the globe agree with Palin that their lives fit into God’s grand scheme. When liberals laugh at Palin on this score, they risk laughing at billions. And even liberals should understand that billions can impact the flow of history.

Is Mandatory "Healthcare" Constutional?

Prolife video: For Women Who Are Considering an Abortion

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Prolife video: For Women Who Are Considering an Abortion

This prolife video, "For Women Who Are Considering an Abortion," is very powerful. The woman is excellent, composed and yet vulnerable, and the human dimension is very strong. Her words about those who have had abortions, after being victims of rape and incest, are right on. Wow.



(Click here if the video doesn't show up for you.)

Those who are preparing for Sanctity of Human Life Sunday on January 24 might like to browse the prolife article section on the Eternal Perspective Ministries website, which has dozens of prolife articles. Here's some selected resources from EPM related to this topic:

Is Abortion Right When Pregnancy is Due to Rape or Incest?

Can God Forgive Abortions?

50 Ways to Help Unborn Babies and Their Mothers


www.facebook.com/randyalcorn
www.twitter.com/randyalcorn
www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com

www.epm.org

And Now, The Rest of the Story...

Most of us were shocked recently, if that's still possible, with Harry Reid's comments comparing those opposed to a government run health plan which would pay for abortion on demand to those who opposed slavery and civil rights for African-Americans. This misspeak was aimed specifically at the Republican Party. Really! I wonder if Harry received an "F" in U.S. History. It was Harry's party that resisted these rights for over 100 years! (Don't believe me, Click here:) I'm not surprised that politicians are getting by with comments like this since we no longer teach true History in our public school system. The following from Wallbuilder's reveals what really happened in recent years regarding the two parties:
"When Democrat John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960, he had been less willing than Eisenhower to utilize executive orders to promote civil rights. He even delayed for more than two years the signing of an executive order to integrate public housing. However, following the violent racial discord in Birmingham in 1963, Kennedy sent a major civil rights bill to Congress – a bill based on the findings of Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Commission. Kennedy worked aggressively for the passage of that civil rights bill but was tragically assassinated before he could see its success. Democratic presidential successor Lyndon Johnson picked up the civil rights measure, but like his predecessors, he faced stiff opposition from his own party. In fact, Democratic Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Richard Russell of Georgia led the opposition against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including lengthy and extended filibuster speeches. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen resurrected language proposed by Eisenhower’s Attorney General in 1960, thus breaking the filibuster of the civil rights bill and allowing Johnson to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These two important civil rights acts were signed into law under a Democratic President, but it was the Republicans in Congress who made possible the passage of both acts, for Democratic President Johnson had been unable to garner sufficient Democratic support to pass either bill. At that time, Democrats had 315 members in Congress, holding almost two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. President Johnson needed only a majority – only 269 votes – to get those bills passed; but out of the 315 Democrats, only 198 voted for passage. Democrats had it completely within their power to pass those bills and did not do so. The bills passed because Republicans overwhelmingly came to the aid of Democrat President Johnson: in fact, 83 percent of Republicans voted for those bills, a percentage of support almost twenty points higher than that of the Democrats. If not for the strong support of Republicans, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would never have become law – not to mention the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The 1964 Civil Rights Act had banned discrimination in voting, public accommodations, education, federal programs, or employment. The 1965 Voting Rights Act had banned literacy tests and authorized the federal government to oversee voter registration and elections in counties that had used such tests. Those two Acts – along with the 24th Amendment to the Constitution – were the final culmination of a century of civil rights legislation, and of even a longer period of attempts to secure equal rights and racial justice for African Americans. What was the effect of these three measures? The positive impact of these changes was immediate. For example, within a year, 450,000 new southern blacks were successfully registered to vote and voter registration of black Americans in Mississippi also rose sharply – from only 5 percent in 1960 to 60 percent by 1968. The number of blacks serving in federal and state legislatures rose from only 2 in 1965 to 160 by 1990. The disenfranchisement laws and policies long enforced by southern Democratic legislatures had finally come to an end."

And now, as the Late Paul Harvey would say,"You know the rest of the story."

"Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL, God with us."-Isaiah 7:14

Famous Quotes

"The grand reason why the
miraclous gifts were so soon withdrawn was not only that faith and
holiness were well-nigh lost, but that dry, formal, orthodox men began
then to ridicule whatever gifts they had not themselves and to cry them
all [down] as evil madness or imposture."-John Wesley

Thoughts on Pastor Appreciation Month...

We celebrated Pastor Appreciation Month today at Boonville Wesleyan Church. Pastor and Mrs Ames have been with us since the early nineties. How time flies. In that time we have seen such ministries as Indiana Wesleyan Academy. It has not been that long since we moved into our new sanctuary. Currently we minister on Wednesday evenings at Woodmont. I appreciate the different Pastors who have ministered to me personally over the years. Especially those who visited me when I underwent surgery back on February 2007. When Pastors are mentioned I always think of John Wesley who rode horseback enough miles to circle the globe several times. He gave up a life of comfort to bring the Gospel to many who would never be able to enter the great social churches of 18th century England.He often met great and violent resistance from those who didn't want to hear his message. Many churches of today probably couldn't handle some of the truths of which he spoke. As the Rev'd Dr. Jack Van Impe says,"Sermonettes usually produce Christianettes." Preaching the Word isn't always easy in today's world. When your Pastor does, be sure to give him or her a pat on the back and tell them how much you appreciate them...God Bless...keith..1 Cor 13.

Kudos to Bart Stupak

Senators Reject Stronger Pro-Life Language
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press

Senate Finance Committee member Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., during the markup of health care legislation on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Washington (AP) - In a vote with far-reaching political implications, senators writing a health care overhaul Wednesday rejected a bid to strengthen anti-abortion provisions in the legislation - which could reach the Senate floor in the next two weeks.

The 13-10 vote by the Senate Finance Committee could threaten support for the health care bill from some Catholics who otherwise back its broad goal of expanding coverage. But women's groups are likely to see the committee's action as a reasonable compromise on a divisive issue that is always fraught with difficulties.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argued that provisions already in the bill to restrict federal funding for abortions needed to be tightened to guarantee they would be ironclad.

But his amendment failed to carry the day. One Republican - Olympia Snowe of Maine - voted with the majority. One Democrat - Kent Conrad of North Dakota - supported Hatch.

Separately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that the full Senate could start voting on health care legislation the week of Oct. 12, after the Columbus Day holiday. Reid has to meld the Finance bill with legislation that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved this summer.

Conservatives also are determined to strengthen prohibitions against illegal immigrants getting federal funding to buy insurance.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa offered an amendment that would have helped cut fraud in health care programs for low-income people. It would have required applicants to present a government-issued ID when applying for Medicaid or the children's health care program.

But Democrats said unscrupulous medical providers - not beneficiaries - are usually the ones responsible for fraud. They said current ID requirements for beneficiaries are strong enough. The vote was 13-10, against the amendment.

Emotions ran high over the health care issue in Congress.

In the House, a Democratic lawmaker angered Republicans when he summed up their health care alternative as the GOP wanting Americans to "die quickly" if they get sick. Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has refused to apologize for his remarks on the House floor Tuesday night in which he called GOP health care proposals a "blank piece of paper."

Republicans are likening the remarks to Rep. Joe Wilson's widely criticized shout of "You lie!" during Obama's address to Congress earlier this month. They say Democrats should insist that Grayson apologize just as they insisted Wilson, R-S.C., should.

The abortion debate in the Senate Finance Committee is certain to be waged again - with higher stakes and greater intensity - on the Senate floor.

Finance chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., argued that his bill already incorporates federal law that bars abortion funding, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. It would require health plans to keep federal subsidies separate from any funds used to pay for abortions in all other cases.

A major concern for abortion opponents - including Catholic bishops - is that those underlying restrictions have to be renewed every year. If Congress fails to renew the ban one year, plans funded through the health care overhaul would be allowed to cover the procedure, abortion opponents contend.

Abortion rights supporters respond that adding a permanent restriction on abortion funding to the health bill would actually go beyond current federal law - in which such curbs have to be renewed every year.

"This is a health care bill," said Baucus. "This is not an abortion bill. And we are not changing current law."

Hatch said his language, "would codify it, so we don't have to go through it every year."

Abortion rights supporters said the Hatch language could deny coverage for abortion to working women signing up for coverage through private plans.

Its approval would be a "poison pill ... if it is hung on this legislation," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

The committee also rejected 13-10 a second Hatch amendment that would have strengthened current legal protections for health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on grounds of moral or religious objections.

Abortion and immigration are also pending controversies in the House, where Democratic leaders hope to finalize legislation this week that would merge the work of three separate committees into one. House Democrats are struggling over how to pare the bill down to $900 billion over 10 years - Obama's preferred price tag and about how much the Senate Finance version costs.

___

AP writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)