Pelosi's healthcare plan would directly fund abortion

Repeating yesterday's Red Alert: Call your congressperson and tell him/her to vote NO on Pelosi's healthcare bill.

This analysis of Pelosi's healthcare bill comes from National Right to Life:

Pelosi photo, healthcare, abortion.jpg

Regarding the health care bill unveiled today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a spokesman for the nation's largest pro-life organization said, "A vote for this bill is a vote to establish a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds."...

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee , referred specifically to language on page 110 of the new bill (H.R. 3962) [below, click to enlarge] which explicitly authorizes the "public health insurance option" to pay for all elective abortions.

Pelosi, abortion, healthcare.jpg

The "public health insurance option" or "public plan" would be a health insurance program operated directly by the federal government, through the Department of Health and Human Services....

"The public plan will be a federal agency program, and all funds spent by the agency are federal funds," Johnson said. "The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, in an October 9 memo obtained by NRLC, confirmed that all funds spent by the bill's public plan will be federal funds. Prominent Democrats who have claimed that the federal government could pay for abortion with 'private' funds have been engaged in a big snow job - and in swallowing such a contrived, implausible claim, many journalists have been all too gullible."

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) has proposed an amendment that would prohibit the federal government plan from paying for abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But Speaker Pelosi intends to try to force the House to pass the 1990-page bill under a "closed rule" (a procedure that allows no amendments to be considered), reportedly because she fears that the House would adopt the Stupak Amendment if a vote were allowed.

NRLC and other pro-life groups are urging House members to vote against imposition of the closed rule. The showdown could occur on the House floor as soon as November 5 or 6.

"Anyone voting to forbid amendments to this bill is in effect voting to set up a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds," Johnson said.

While running for President, Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood that his health care legislation would create a public plan that would cover abortions. "Obama has never recanted his promise that the federal government plan will cover elective abortion - he just wants to pretend that a federal agency could spend 'private' funds, an untenable claim," Johnson said. "The White House and top Democratic congressional leaders are trying to smuggle federal government funding of abortion into law, behind smokescreens of misleading, contrived language."

The bill also has a 2nd objectionable provision relating to abortion - it would allow federal subsidies to help pay for the cost of private health plans that cover elective abortion, a departure from longstanding federal policy. Stupak's amendment would correct this problem, as well....


Comments:

Absolutely, positively, disgusting.

This fully explains why Planned Parenthood has been opening massive shops.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 29, 2009 5:48 PM


I guess the Holy Father's comments during her meeting with the Pope didn't sink in.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at October 29, 2009 6:01 PM


We are your employers, Ms. Pelosi and in the words of Donald TRUMP: YOU'RE FIRED!


Don't forget she had the nerve to kiss His Holiness' Ring, when he visited the USA in April 2008, Cranky.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 29, 2009 6:08 PM


Read page 1420-1421 - regarding a Sense of Congress Study on all phases of pregnancy.

If I understand this correctly, this is intended to stack the deck against ANY future legislation against abortion.

No matter what the results of the study actually is, it's almost guaranteed to be false.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 29, 2009 6:37 PM


You have to wonder what the part about screening with pregnancy means (I know it says Postpartum, but could it also include screening during pregnancy for things like Downs?)

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 29, 2009 6:58 PM


Sorry to interrupt the hysteria, but the cited language appears to make funds for abortion services available only if separate federal law at the time in question so authorizes. Federal law currently does not authorize funds for abortions.

Posted by: Bystander at October 29, 2009 7:17 PM


If the proaborts want us out of abortion they need to stop asking us to pay for abortion.

Posted by: JillGuidry at October 29, 2009 8:39 PM


Bystander,
The government ALREADY uses government money to fund abortions. See the Mexico City Policy revocation and federal funds given to Planned Parenthood for starters.

The Hyde Amendment only prohibits federal funding of abortions in the Medicare program. Not other federal programs.

Posted by: army_wife at October 29, 2009 9:00 PM


The plot thickens...

The catholic bishops are calling for united opposition against this bill and Chris Matthews on Hardball had a great exchange with Stupak and Yarmuth about the whole controversy on Hardball.

Posted by: carder at October 29, 2009 9:09 PM


I agree with JillGuidry.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 29, 2009 9:57 PM


The bill also includes end of life counseling. That is just scary.

Posted by: kmann at October 30, 2009 6:12 AM


the scary part about that, kmann, is that the more vulnerable elderly could be led to going without necessary food and water......sort of like Terri all over again.

And then of course they could be told to just take a "pill" or that they are a BURDEN on society....you get what I am saying?


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2009 8:20 AM


There is no way this bill can pass. Too much $$$, too radical. Un-American.

Posted by: Ryan at October 30, 2009 9:04 AM


My understanding is that the final House bill contains the Capps amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion except per the Hyde amendment conditions. But don't take my word for it...Rep. Capps explained it herself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-lois-capps/the-truth-about-the-capps_b_288284.html

Posted by: Ray at October 30, 2009 2:13 PM


According to this article from RH Reality Check back in July (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/07/30/breaking-news-house-committee-passes-capps-amendment-protects-abortion-coverage-private-plans), the Capps Amendment: "appears to protect the ability of private insurance plans to provide coverage for abortion care, whether or not other aspects of the plan receive government subsidies."

It means that the government can fund abortions through these insurance plans with taxpayer dollars.

Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at October 30, 2009 2:44 PM


Our Country is BROKE! We can't afford a massive healthcare makeover ... I mean reform.

When is Obama going to start rooting out the fraud in Medicare?
When is he going to start working on tort reform?
When is he going to stop giving our money to people who can't afford to make payments on a house??

Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2009 3:16 PM


I almost forgot...

When is he going to DEFUND Planned Parenthood?

* * * * *

Just wondering.....
Nancy Pelosi is almost 70 years old. Shouldn't she be retiring soon?

Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2009 3:19 PM


There are many disturbing things in the healthcare overhaul/takeover. Funding for abortion, "end-of-life counseling", a lot of smoke and mirrors. The government can't even keep MASSIVE fraud out of Medicare. How on earth is it going to effectively run a vastly larger program? I don't trust the government with my healthcare at all. I want them to stay out of it. My feelings are similar to many who work in the healthcare industry (i.e., doctors and nurses, etc.) - fix the problems within our current system, NOT raze the whole works and rebuild it from scratch. I'm all for helping disadvantaged folks get the care they need. I do not like the way the government is going about it. What about vouchers on a sliding, income-based scale... as long as these vouchers come with a stipulation that they will not cover plans that provide abortion (including the morning-after pill and other forms of hormonal birth control that cause early abortions) or assisted suicide.

Posted by: army_wife at October 30, 2009 3:25 PM


this is the newly presnted bill:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
It allows tax dollars to go for abortion:
HR 3962, page 109-110, Subtitle C, Section 222 (a) e (1), (2): this bill will not REQUIRE "public health insurance option" plans, nor PREVENT "public health insurance option" plans, from covering abortion.

HB 3962, page 109-110, Subtitle C, Section 222 (a) e(4)(A), and (4)(B):
"nothing in this act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A)."
4A sez: if some law prevents abortion funding in some circumstance, i.e., Hyde Amendment for Medicaid, then this current bill HR 3962 would not overturn or pre-empt that; 4B sez: if HHS rules ALLOW abortion for a given year, than it can be offered, and restrictions afecting other HHS funding, such as Hyde Amendment, are not in play for HR 3962 "public option."

My reading is that public options thus can offer abortion without interference from Hyde amendment.

To go further, 222 a e 3 says "nothing IN this act" can be construed as preventing the ability of a public plan to offer abortion coverage. This MIGHT mean that language elsewhere IN this bill would effectively be rendered ineffective. In other words, if an amendment gets added declaring NO abortion coverage can be offered by any public plan, that language itself might be deemed not applicable.

I know that at the state level, you generally cannot have a new bill introduced that is illegal by an existing bill. -Texas had a case where a proposed / enacted needle exchange program was deemed not-legal because it conflicted with a pre-existing bill preventing distribution of illegal-drug paraphernalia. I do not know how this would be handled in a federal bill. If the bill advances to a house/senate reconciliation committee, the reconciliation committee might detect this issue and reconcile the bill, FOLLOWING voting by both senate and house.

Posted by: Row1 at October 30, 2009 4:20 PM


When is he going to DEFUND Planned Parenthood? Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2009 3:19 PM

Hi Janet. Wanna bet PP is the front runner for our tax dollars under Section 317U, page 1398, Healthy Teen Initiative to Prevent Teen Pregnancy? Sebellius will have authority to direct the dollars as she pleases.

Posted by: Fed Up at October 31, 2009 3:36 AM


Of course they will be, Fed Up. They also will force their way into schools with the school based health clinics. You can't give a child an advil or tylenol, but they'll be giving him/her a condom or birth control pills w/o you knowing!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 31, 2009 7:53 PM


Thanks to the traitors in the District of Criminals and the foolish public who have bought into this garbage, now we're all going to be forced to fund our own genocide. Hitler would be proud to say the least. Well what do we expect? Through the theory of evolution we've now convinced millions of people their merely another form of animal. Simply another part of the animal kingdom. We justify the enslavement, herding, and tyrannical control of animals. However with the human animal we're in the same category as a cock roach. We're pests, and what do we do with pests? We exterminate them! Hence the Nazi (National Socialism) inspired health care reform program poised to installed mechanisms of justified genocide in the United States.

Posted by: nwosucks.blogspot.com at November 5, 2009 6:19 PM