I also feel compelled to remind my former colleagues that contrary to what many people have been saying, the bill explicitly prevents federal dollars from being used to fund abortion. It ensures not only that those seeking abortion coverage will be required to pay for it with their own money, but also that their personal money will never be commingled with federal funds. As a former congressman with a 100 percent pro-life voting record, I'm comfortable supporting this bill.
This statement appears to be a blatant lie. Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and other Democrats have been trying to repeat this lie often enough that the public will believe it. Watch this video and see the explicit text in the bill that calls for funding abortion.
4 comments:
The whole section has to be read for that one clause to make sense. As is so often the case with these people, it's written bass-ackwards. But what it amounts to appears to be that it allows states to opt out of abortion coverage. They're not required to provide abortion coverage but they have to actually pass a statute to opt out.
IOW, as written, the bill defaults to allowing federal money to be spent on abortions.
Amuk said...
"The whole section has to be read for that one clause to make sense. As is so often the case with these people, it's written bass-ackwards. But what it amounts to appears to be that it allows states to opt out of abortion coverage. They're not required to provide abortion coverage but they have to actually pass a statute to opt out.
IOW, as written, the bill defaults to allowing federal money to be spent on abortions."
Even if this is true, how does that prevent federal subsidies form being used to pay for abortion in states that don't opt out?
Reality check: this part of the law states, in effect, that federal funding can be used for abortions where federal funding can be used for abortions. In other words, where existing law allows federal funding for abortion -- in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment -- federal funding can be used. It simply reiterates the existing laws that prohibit federal funding from paying for abortions -- through Medicaid -- unless it is a case of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
You're making mountains out of molehills. There is already law on the books that prohibits federal funding for abortion except in these extremely limited circumstances. So unless you are in favor of letting women who can't pay out of pocket to terminate a pregnancy that's about to kill her, or forcing 9 year old rape or incest victims to carry pregnancies to term (which can kill them or leave them severely injured), maybe you should rethink your objection to this particular part of the bill.
1.The Senate bill does call for abortion funding to be kept in a separate account from federal subsidy money, but this is simply accounting sleight of hand. Here is an analogy to help you understand. Imagine you wanted to go to a ballgame that costs $200, but you can't afford it. The government agrees to subsidize $180 your trip, but prohibits you from buying beer with their subsidy. They tell you to keep their money in a separate pocket and use it to pay for everything but beer. Then, the government claims they didn't buy you any beer at the ballpark.
2. Every enrollee in a plan that provides abortion has to pay at least 12 dollars a year to cover abortion. If your employer takes one of these plans, you will have to pay into the abortion account. Americans don't have a choice of which plan their employers chose and employers usually choose the cheapest. http://www.lifenews.com/nat5817.html
3. This document from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops breaks down the issues in some more detail. (pdf) http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/hatch-nelson120409.pdf
4. Rep. Bart Stupak and his compatriots aren't stupid. I believe he really wants to vote for this bill. After all, he did the first time through after the Stupak amendment was passed. If the plans really don't expand abortion, why are pro-choice senators against the stronger language in the Stupak amendment? Henry Waxman revealed the truth in a discussion with Rep. Stupak. According to Stupak, Waxman said, “we want to pay for abortions.” http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2010/03/waxman-to-stupak-we-want-to-pay-for.html
Post a Comment