(Click above to enlarge.)
Planned Parenthood would like pro-aborts to thank Democrat House members who voted for passage of the pro-abortion healthcare plan.
On PP's list of representatives to thank are the following professed pro-lifers...
Jerry Costello (IL)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Mike Doyle (PA)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Baron Hill (IN)
Dale Kildee (MI)
James Langevin (RI)
James Oberstar (MN - former co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus)
Solomon Ortiz (TX)
Tom Perriello (VA)
Tim Ryan (OH)
Charles Wilson (OH)
PP placed the following pro-lifers in pro-abort never-never land. These representatives voted for the bill, giving PP the VICTORY!, but supported Obama's meaningless executive order, which didn't make 1 change to the Senate's pro-abort version, as PP also indicated. Click to enlarge
The pro-life enablers were:
Bart Stupak (MI)
[HT: IN Right to Life]
I thought abortion wasn't in the health care bill? :P
Defund Planned Parenthood!!Posted by: carla at March 29, 2010 11:51 AM
Damned if you do and damned if you don't for these so-called "pro-life" Democrats.
Unfortunately, it would depend on who's doing the Damning. In this life, they only have to worry about their political careers....when said life is over, the have to worry about where their souls end up for all eternity.
Should have been an easy "choice".Posted by: RSD at March 29, 2010 1:42 PM
Abortion funding *isn't* in the health care bill. If you think it is, I challenge you to show me exactly where.Posted by: Violet at March 29, 2010 3:44 PM
Mikulski for one, Violet. Remember, the part you couldn't envision being invoked by proaborts to define abortion as preventive care? PP's press release the day after the bill passed referred to "essential preventive health care". Surprise, surprise. Perhaps instead of protesting that PP offers other preventive services beside abortion, you can instead give some credible evidence that PP is not still working with the administration to get their abortions funded.
If the intent wasn't to include abortion, why the jubilation from Congressman Ryan? Note at approx 1:22 he says, "I was hootin' and hollerin' on the floor the other day about, you know, I said 'You go tell the 600 Catholic hospitals and all the sisters and the administrators that they're pro-abortion.'" Not pro-choice, Violet, pro-abortion.
The bill passed. You can drop the no-abortion-funding charade now.
I suppose it wouldn't make any difference to you to note that the health care bill vastly increases access to and coverage of all kinds of preventative care? And clearly, noting that 97.3% of Planned Parenthood's services are not abortion services won't sway you, either, even though it's true. It seems like even you have decided abortion is preventative care -- "Perhaps instead of protesting that PP offers other preventive services beside abortion -- even though no matter how pro-choice a person is, classifying abortion as preventative care is absurd.
To get an idea of how preventative care may be defined by HHS, one place to look is at the existing laws and rules regarding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Preventative care mainly consists of vaccinations and regular screenings (for cancer, diabetes, and so on). (More information here: http://bit.ly/9Simze) I can't see abortion fitting into that list, no matter how much I'd like to see access to abortion increased, not decreased.
The funniest thing about all of this for me is that if you were correct, we'd be seeing nothing but rejoicing on the part of pro-choice groups where this bill is concerned. In fact, that couldn't be further from the truth. Planned Parenthood is among the few organizations in the pro-choice movement to declare passage of the bill a "victory", probably because as a provider of many kinds of health services, they see their cause as supporting the overall health of their patients and communities, something this bill will do. The groups that are focused only on protecting the right to choose, however, are in a state of mourning -- because it appears that between the complete absence of abortion funding in the bill (aside from the Hyde exceptions), and the "two check provision", there will most likely be no insurance coverage for abortion within a few years. No one in the pro-choice movement is rejoicing about the state of abortion given this bill. Even Planned Parenthood, declaring the bill a "victory" for health care access, had some sobering words when it came to how the "2 check provision" would limit access to abortion: "This provision only serves to stigmatize a woman’s right to comprehensive insurance coverage that includes abortion. The Nelson abortion check provision creates an unworkable system for health plans, and it is likely health plans will forgo covering abortion care rather than have to abide by this series of cumbersome administrative requirements. In addition, this provision removes the protection in the underlying Senate bill that required that each exchange have at least one plan that provides abortion coverage and one that does not provide abortion coverage. Under this plan, there would only be a guarantee of a plan that does not provide abortion coverage. It also unnecessarily removes protections for abortion providers — leaving a lopsided protection only for entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion." (http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/healthreform/683.htm)
Do those sound like words of celebration? Not to me. But then, I'm sure you have some other clever explanation for that, too.Posted by: Violet at March 29, 2010 5:20 PM
Oh, and almost forgot:
Perhaps instead of protesting that PP offers other preventive services beside abortion, you can instead give some credible evidence that PP is not still working with the administration to get their abortions funded.
Aside from the fact that it's impossible to prove a negative, I have no connection to or affiliation with Planned Parenthood, I am not privy to their lobbying efforts or projects, and even if I was, I don't think you'd take any evidence I offered any more seriously than you've taken anything else I've had to say here, anyway.
And as far as Congressman Ryan, is it really necessary to point out that being pro-choice does not mean I stand 100% behind anything and everything that every other pro-choice person or organization might say or do? I represent only myself and my own ideas and opinions.
I can't tell you what he was thinking or what he meant, since I don't have access to his brain or even know what state he represents. Unfortunately, being pro-choice does not offer any magical protection from committing terrible media gaffes or speaking thoughtlessly into a microphone.Posted by: Violet at March 29, 2010 5:42 PM
To get an idea of how preventative care may be defined by HHS, one place to look is at the existing laws and rules regarding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).
Posted by: Violet at March 29, 2010 5:20 PM
We've been through this, Violet. The law now allows HHS discretion to define preventive care in any fashion it pleases, even without review of evidence.
I'm sure you have some other clever explanation for that, too.
Nope, I'll just quote PP, who "says it is confident it can work with the White House to craft regulatory language softening some of the anti-abortion requirements inserted into the final bill by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), even as other pro-choice groups denounce the legislation and criticize Democratic lawmakers for making too many compromises on reproductive rights to get it passed."
Carry on with your charade if you must. I, for one, won't be watching.Posted by: Fed Up at March 29, 2010 5:48 PM
Nope, I'll just quote PP
That "quote" is actually a quote from blogger Dana Goldstein, who was paraphrasing (well, at least that's the implication) -- the only actual quote in the entry you linked to is from Laurie Rubiner, VP of Public Policy at Planned Parenthood, and what she actually said was: "We’re going to try and work with the administration in order to make this the least cumbersome as possible. There are ways through the regulatory process that we could ease some of these administrative processes."
The language she uses suggests that she's talking about the "2 Check Provision" and making the administrative processes involved easier for insurance companies to hopefully prevent abortion coverage from being dropped altogether. However, I don't really know what she meant, and you don't either, because those are the only quotes there.
All that is totally aside from the fact that -- assuming I'm getting your point correctly -- you think two sentences from one person at Planned Parenthood (in response to a call or email from a blogger) is a better gauge of their position on the health care bill than long and detailed analyses posted on their website. I'm left wondering if this was the best quote you could find from anyone at PP, since one would think you'd use a link to the PP site or a quote from a major news source if you had one.
Oh, and there's no need for me to carry on any charades, since there is still no abortion funding in this bill. But thanks for your permission, nonetheless.Posted by: Violet at March 29, 2010 6:36 PM
The bill has passed. Why do you feel the need to "sell it" to pro-lifers?
Why sell it indeed? As I recall the "Nelson" compromise involved setting up a separate fund (with required financial participation of all Americans) to fund abortions. I didn't see anything in the EO to get rid of that.Posted by: Denise at March 29, 2010 9:10 PM
I'm not trying to "sell it". That would be silly. But I am tired of hearing the same line that there is abortion funding in the HCR law, and when I see a chance to correct that, I try to do it. As long as people keep saying it, I'm happy to keep refuting it. Other than the absurd idea that abortion could be defined as preventative care under Mikulski (assuming that no other laws would kick in to prevent it, a point I haven't yet seen addressed and which I don't know enough about the existing laws to address myself), I haven't yet seen any specific examples from the bill that hold water as far as abortion funding. Though I'm still open to anyone who wants to find one and show me.Posted by: Violet at March 29, 2010 9:32 PM
Hi Janet. I saw your question on the Mikulski amendment on another thread. This link may interest you. In it you'll hear Senator Mikulski explain that preventive services encompass anything "medically necessary or medically appropriate" and that PP would be considered a provider for these services. She explicitly refused to exclude "abortion services" from her amendment. Under the new law, HHS and HRSA have authority to put forth a regulation that an elective abortion is medically appropriate, thereby covering abortions through the backdoor by administrative means.Posted by: Fed Up at March 29, 2010 10:25 PM
Pro-aborts can say what they want about this so-called "HealthCare" bill...but no one can refute the "joy" and "glee" of the LARGEST abortion provider in the world when this abomination of a bill passed.
Now, tell me...who's telling the truth on what this bill will do??
** Actions do speak louder than words **Posted by: RSD at March 30, 2010 9:32 AM
Violet said, "Abortion funding *isn't* in the health care bill. If you think it is, I challenge you to show me exactly where."
According to Mr. Stupak on Greta VanSusteren's show on March 19, the law which has existed for the last thirty-three years says that there must be no abortion as a benefit in a federal health care plan or policy paid for in part by the federal government. Mr. Stupak said that the Senate bill was a "drastic break from the current law for the last 33 years." For proof, he referred the listener to p. 237 and p. 2071 of the Senate bill: (1) At least one policy must have abortion in it. (2) The federal government will give refundable tax credits to pay for the policy. They aren't tax deductions; they are refunds.
Abortion funding is in the health care bill.Posted by: Jon at March 30, 2010 11:16 AM
With this bill, even without explicit federal funding for the procedure, abortion has come out of the shadows, so to speak. If it is now to be considered a legitimate medical procedure, then this opens up the specter of almost every hospital
performing abortions, and so obviates the need to
travel to a seedy part of town to avail oneself of this "service" at one of the abortuaries