As lawmakers work to pass health reform legislation, "few are talking about" the "essential question" of whether "health reform will force taxpayers to pay for abortions for the first time in 30 years," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins writes in a Washington Times opinion piece. According to Perkins, "the short answer is yes" because there is no "explicit provision" in any Democratic health plan that would "[p]revent taxpayer funding of abortions as part of the health care benefit Congress is considering"; avert "delays in health care services that result in the death of the patient waiting for care"; or allow health care providers "to refuse to participate in health care-related action that violates their conscience." Perkins continues that the House"s reform proposal would provide federal coverage for ""family planning," the well-worn buzz word that includes abortion unless specified to the contrary." He adds that "it would be naive to assume, unless there is an explicit prohibition in the bill, that [HHS] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will not use her discretion to fund abortions with taxpayers" money." Perkins also writes that the Democratic reform plans, "in short, ... attempt to be silent on the key question of whether or not to allow the U.S. government to fund abortions with taxpayers" money," and also give the HHS secretary "the power to allow taxpayer-funded abortions."He writes, "The Family Research Council"s answer is clear: There must be a permanent prohibition on taxpayer-funded abortions," as well as "provision to allow a right of conscience for doctors and nurses and other health care providers" to refuse to participate in treatments they oppose. He adds that "there can be no system of denial or delay or rationing of care." Perkins concludes, "Euthanasia by any other name is a poison pill in the health reform debate" (Perkins, Washington Times, 7/5)