I wrote earlier today that, much to the dismay of pro-aborts, Pennsylvania and New Mexico are being forced to revise their Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans to scratch federal funding of abortions via Obamacare after the National Right to Life Committee blew the whistle.
In a July 7 press release, MD Gov. Martin O'Malley announced that a state government entity, the MD Health Insurance Plan, would administer the new federal PCIP program in MD....
"MHIP currently operates a state high risk pool program and has the experience and expertise necessary to establish and operate the federal high risk pool program in a timely and efficient manner," the release stated.
The bottom of the release states, "For more information, please read our Frequently Asked Questions."
The FAQ document includes this information: "What benefits are offered by the MHIP Federal Plan? The MHIP Federal Plan offers the same benefit package as other MHIP plan options," referring to the state plans that MD already had in effect.
And those plan options include abortion. See page 53 of the plan details....
Incidentally, the 1st and only director of the MD MHIP was Richard Popper, who is now overseeing the new federal PCIP program at DHHS.
"Each day brings more evidence that federal DHHS was merrily approving abortion-funding plans without a second thought," wrote Johnson in an email. "There is no evidence that DHHS either conveyed to the states that abortion could not be included, or that DHHS had any intent of imposing such a policy, until NRLC put the spotlight on the issue."
Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO Online more succinctly made my point from earlier today:
[DHHS] finally issued a release yesterday assuring that they will, in fact, issue guidelines forbidding abortion coverage in the Obamacare federally funded PCIP state programs.
And today, the National Women's Law Center [see email in this post], among others, are upset with the administration for saying they'll do such a thing.
Which means the lie is up: Obamacare never prohibited abortion funding. It's a matter of administrative discretion.
The Obama administration and other Democrats have been hawking the myths that a) there is some kind of global Hyde amendment that forbids all federally funded abortions and b) the executive order solves all problems.
If a and b were true, how were any state plans approved that were covering abortions?
The truth of the matter is that news today that MD was planning on funding abortions in their high-risk pool is but the tip of the iceberg....
What you failed to mention, is what section 3, Maternity Services, and the subsection Abortion actually means; when put into scope of the FULL Certificate of Coverage "http://www.marylandhealthinsuranceplan.state.md.us/mhip/attachments/CertificateOfCoverage.pdf".
But before I explain to you why you are wrong, let me first state what we both agree with. I don't beleive federal funds should be used for elective procedures such as abortions. I personally do not beleive in abortions as a matter of birth control; (I would never advocate my wife getting one if she became pregnant, nor would I ever tell a woman to get one).
With that out of the way, when you take it (the mhip) on the surface, as most ditto heads do, it looks like it covers abortions. Except for one small problem, in the medical world, abortions are by definition, Elective, and not medically necessary.
SO, if you were responsible and chose to continue reading down to the list of exclusions in section 4 (Page 71); the very first exclusion states:
"The Plan will not pay for expenses incurred by you for the following:
1. Services that are not Medically Necessary;"
That is crystal clear! Since you will not find a single medical journal, law or medical practictioner that will state that a abortion is ~not~ an elective procedure and thus not medically necessary. Your argument about "Obamacare allowing for abortions" is moot.
The only reason why abortions are covered under these plans is in the case of when it IS medically necessary; as in the case of saving the mothers life, or in the case of rape and incest.
Just don't be a ditto head. Do your research and be fair and impartial. Jesus will appreciate it.Posted by: LordInfidel at July 17, 2010 12:21 PM
Have you ever read the text of Doe v. Bolton (1973), a landmark case, and companion to Roe v. Wade? I think not, because if you had, than you would have realized that "Medically Necessary" translates into "..to preserve the mother's life or health.." which "..the term health [is used] in its broadest medical context.." so, 'health' in this context is defined "..the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.."
I suggest you do your Research.Posted by: diane125 at July 19, 2010 2:27 PM
There is a letter in the Washington Times w/similar language to comment above. Interesting thing about this letter which i quote in full:
Your Wednesday editorial "Obamacare abortions on tap," has it wrong.
Pennsylvania will - and always has intended to - comply with the federal ban on abortion funding in the coverage provided through our federally funded high-risk pool. This program will provide much-needed assistance for the sickest of the sick. The likelihood that any of those covered will seek abortion services is remote, but if they do need such services, they will have to pay for them out their own pockets.
Our pending contract with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) makes it crystal clear that we will "operate the Program in compliance with federal law and the forthcoming final federal regulations." This has always meant that the existing federal ban on abortion funding would be followed, which permits abortion services in the instance of rape, incest or ENDANGERING THE MOTHER. (my emphasis)*
Pennsylvania's position is not a statement about the broader abortion debate. It simply recognizes that health care reform, particularly extending health coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, is too important a priority to be hijacked by those who seek to turn common-sense health reforms into a rancorous debate about whether the federal ban on abortion funding is too broad or too narrow. These efforts failed to derail health care reform this spring, and they will fail to stop much-needed coverage for thousands of Pennsylvanians now.
Pennsylvania Insurance Department
Notice how the commissioner doesn't say endangering the LIFE of the mother, because only ONE doctor needs to certify that "it is "necessary" based on "all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman." Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: "No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion."
Once a doctor certifies the procedure is NECESSARY, it is no longer ELECTIVE. Which is why the insurance commissioner proceeds to rant and rave about derailing health care & remote possibilities.
The state of Maryland uses our state tax dollars to pay for abortions right now:
Do Maryland taxpayers pay for abortions under the state Medicaid program?
A: Yes. According to data from fiscal years 2004 and 2005, Maryland taxpayers are forced to pay more than $2 million annually to fund more than 4,000 abortions per fiscal year.
Reports from 2006 indicate that 99.8 percent of Maryland Medicaid abortions performed last year were done for "mental health" reasons.
Unfortunately, too many people just want to bury their heads in the sand.
Posted by: Itstheorientation
at July 19, 2010 2:44 PM
Let's get something clear. Conception by rape or incest does not make murder the infant 'medically necessary'. A baby human being is not an 'exception'.Posted by: Lifesong at July 19, 2010 7:21 PM