Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Sunday pledged that President Barack Obama will support barring public funding for abortion in any health care overhaul legislation.

“That’s exactly what the president said and I think that’s what he intends, that the bill he signs will do,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Abortion policy has been an ongoing concern throughout the health care debate. In July, the House Energy and Commerce Committee attempted to compromise on abortion funding as it wrote its version of the health care bill.

 The bill would permit the proposed public health care plan to fund abortions, though not with federal money.

The provision was approved by only a 30 to 28 vote by the committee, as six Democrats joined 22 Republicans to vote against it. Anti-abortion groups labeled the measure a “sham,” and but abortion rights backers said that without such protection, women who use the “public option” could be barred from obtaining abortions.

Currently, federal money can only be used for abortions that deal with pregnancies resulting from rape, incest or endanger the mother’s life.

Sebelius said Sunday “There's no intent to change the language that's in the current Medicaid statute, which has been there for years and provides insurance to millions of Americans.”

Anti-abortion groups Sunday remains wary. Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life legislative director, noted that "For months the President, his staff, and his congressional allies have misrepresented actual language in their bills that would result in government funding of elective abortions. 

"The latest statements by Mr. Obama and Ms. Sebelius are most likely a continuation of their strategy of denial, evasion, and distortion.," Johnson said. "We say, watch what they do, not what they say."

            Here’s a partial transcript of her exchange with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos:

            STEPHANOPOULOS:  Secretary Sebelius, what's wrong with that,

making it explicit in the bill that no public funding should go toward

abortions? 

            SEBELIUS:  Well, I think that's what the president intends to do.

There's no intent to change the language that's in the current

Medicaid statute, which has been there for years and provides

insurance to millions of Americans.

            And in fact, recently the Catholic bishops came out, after the

president's statement, saying that his statement about what he intends

in the plan, that no public funds would go to fund abortions, and the

fact that he has come out firmly for insuring all Americans and saying

it's a moral issue as well as an economic issue, and they endorse

moving forward.

            So I think that, you know, the legislative language will reflect

what the president has just said.

            STEPHANOPOULOS:  So you're saying it will go beyond what we have

seen so far in the House and explicitly rule out any public funding

for abortion? 

            SEBELIUS:  Well, that's exactly what the president said and I

think that's what he intends.  That the bill he signs will do. 

President Obama participated in a scripted online commercial for his health care overhaul with religious voters and pastors Wednesday that ended with him bemoaning those who bear “false witness” against his plans – and then making a claim of his own that’s been widely shown to be false.

“There’s been a lot of misinformation,” Obama said as he joined the program near its end, complaining about “people who are bearing false witness.”

He said the first thing he wanted to correct was the idea that the proposed overhaul would force some people into different health care plans. “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

But that’s not true, according to factcheck.org, an independent truth squadding effort run by the University of Pennsylvania.

“He can’t make that promise to everyone,” says factcheck’s analysis, one of several that have pointed out that the health care plan could lead to employers switching plans _ and thus forcing their employees into different plans and perhaps to different doctors.

“Under the House bill,” Factcheck said, “some employers might have to modify plans after a five-year grace period if they don’t meet minimum benefits standards.

“Furthermore, some firms are likely to buy different coverage for their workers than they have now, or simply drop coverage and pay a penalty instead, leaving workers to buy their own private coverage or go on a new federal insurance plan.”

Obama also worked to knock down the false assertions that the overhaul would create “death panels” that would euthanize old people. “That is just an extraordinary lie,” Obama said.

He also noted that the proposed plan would ban financing health care for illegal immigrants, not provide care as some have charged. And he said there would be no federal financing of abortion under the plans, a charge made again Wednesday by the Republican National Committee.

“These are all fabrications,” he said.

He said he’d need help from all of the people on the call to correct the record, and prod Congress to pass a health care plan.

“I’m going to need the help of all of you,” he said. “Knock on doors, speak the truth.”

The 40-minute program, which was aired via the internet on blogtalkradio.com,  featured testimonials about the need for health care changes from pastors and members of various churches, mosques, synagogues and temples around the country, all of them apparently supporters of Obama’s proposals.
      

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican, would not rule out supporting an abortion rights backer for the U.S. Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice David Souter.

“Could I support a pro-abortion nominee? The answer is yes," the Alabama senator said in an interview taped Friday for C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, which will air Sunday. Sessions was interviewed by reporters from McClatchy and the National Law Journal.

"I don’t expect nominees to come to the bench who do not have views on issues, and I don’t expect them to not have been engaged in the great issues of the day," Sessions, whose views are regarded as conservative, explained. "But when they put on that robe, and two people come before them, and they’re a pro-life and pro-choice ... party, that judge should give them a fair shake. They shouldn’t allow their personal view on abortion to shape how they define the law."

Nominees are almost never filibustered, and Sessions said he does not favor one.

But he recalled how Democrats in recent years have said filibusters were justified in extraordinary circumstances.

"Maybe that’s the new standard. It’s not in concrete, but that may be the standard that would be used in the future," Sessions said.

The House of Representatives Tuesday is expected to pass historic legislation that will dramatically expand the nation's volunteer service programs--but conservative congressional Republicans are worried and wonder if the programs will help abortion rights and gay rights organizations..

The bill "stretches the definition of a volunteer by paying them for their service, frequently providing volunteers with health benefits, housing, and other items that undermine the definition of a volunteer," warns the conservative congressional Republican Study Committee in a "legislative bulletin."

The bill passed both the House and Senate recently by huge margins, attracting lots of GOP lawmakers as well as Democrats. It needs final passage in the House before going to President Barack Obama for his signature.

But watch out, says the RSC. The bill funds AmeriCorps, the nation's major volunteer program at "such sums as may be necessary." But, the RSC notes, "AmeriCorps has funded programs in the past such as Planned Parenthood of Western Washington and the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center (LAGLC).  In addition, they ran a program that gave $5 to children for each toy gun they brought in."

The group also makes a philosophical point: "Many conservatives may not agree that individuals who are paid monthly stipends, compensated for living expenses, and granted healthcare benefits should be classified as volunteers—AmeriCorps indentifies their participants as volunteers.

"This bill is part of a Democrat agenda to force taxpayers to fund liberal service organizations, while at the same time, increasing taxes on charitable donations for individuals who want to support organizations with which they agree."

And, the RSC notes, "Many conservatives may be concerned that the programs authorized and expanded in this bill reflect a big government response to local and community needs—instead of a more effective encouragement of community and individual response to such need."

To read the full RSC report: http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=116380