Kathleen Parker ably exposes the mendacity and between-the-lines legislating that opens the door to public funding of abortion in Obamacare. From her Washington Post column:
Of course the bill doesn’t explicitly state that it appropriates abortion funding. [Me: That will be done in the regulatory process, since the Secretary of HHS is given the authority to decide the details of abortion coverage required of policies sold via the insurance exchanges.] In fact, it takes pains to use terminology that seems to explicitly forbid it.
But other areas are swampier. And, indeed, funds could be used to pay for abortion under circumstances that predictably will evolve. History and precedent tell us this much. For one thing, the Hyde Amendment [that prevents Medicaid funding of abortion] is a rider that must be lobbied and attached each year to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Under its terms, the amendment applies only to those funds. Rather than following the usual course of funding community health centers (CHCs) through the Labor/HHS budget, the health-care-reform measure does an end run around Hyde by directly appropriating billions of dollars into a new CHC fund. [This subterfuge was covered last year by SHS]
Because the Obama administration’s “fix-it” bill did not include the abortion-ban language proposed by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), those billions appropriated to CHCs simply are not covered by Hyde. Now, the president’s executive order purports to address this gap by extending the Hyde Amendment to these dollars as well. The problem is that, regardless of Obama’s stated intentions, he can’t actually do this without an act of Congress.
Which is why the EO is worthless, and besides, can be revoked at will.
And here’s Parker’s second, even more persuasive argument:
Several supporters of the bill have argued that this debate is otherwise irrelevant because abortions aren’t performed at CHCs. While currently true, this doesn’t mean that CHCs wouldn’t like to offer abortion among their reproductive services. Under the new law, they can. There’s nothing to stop them.
Here’s why. By statute, CHCs are required to provide all “required primary health care services,” defined to include “health services related to . . . obstetrics or gynecology that are furnished by physicians.” Federal courts long have held that when a statute requires provision of health services under such broad categories, then the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it. Voilà.
Voila, indeed.
One can support or oppose the government funding abortion. But that isn’t the point. If we are to have any respect for law and ordered liberty, our legislation must honestly describe what is intended and allowed. Otherwise, people can’t fully judge whether or not they approve of what their representatives have done and may not even understand what the law requires or permits.
Of course, that is the whole point of Obamacare: Its authors designed it to deceive and obscure. Repeal. Reform. Replace.
March 27th, 2010 | 12:39 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Obamacare: Dishonest Bill Will Permit Federal Funding of Abortion » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/mpYGc [...]
March 27th, 2010 | 1:03 pm
So, can we conclude from your comments that all Executive Orders are not worth the paper they are printed on? Or are you being very selective regarding this particular EO so as to suit your support for the far right? Did not the Republicans themselves use deception and obscurity in attempts to defeat the health care bill?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
mike gunderson: As the Bush executive order on ESCR proved, what a president signs, can be just as easily unsigned. Moreover, as Parker noted, the EO in this case would actually require legislation to be binding.
March 27th, 2010 | 2:21 pm
“Of course the bill doesn’t explicitly state that it appropriates abortion funding. In fact, it takes pains to use terminology that seems to explicitly forbid it.”
Let’s translate into English: The bill forbids Federal funding of abortion.
Yet, conservative conjurers found the insidious implanted loopholes proving to them that Obama’s plan all along was to force Federal funding of abortions.
Parker opines that community health centers (CHCs) are poised to start performing abortions even though “abortions aren’t performed at CHCs”.
SHS’s conclusion on the Health Care Security bill based on Parker’s evidence: “Its authors designed it to deceive and obscure.”
This must be more of those generalities other commenters reference.
March 27th, 2010 | 2:47 pm
Jeffrey: No, that’s wrong. If that were true, the Senate/House would have accepted Stupak language. It rejected it because the bill is intended to permit federal involvement in abortion funding. That’s why the game playing.
March 27th, 2010 | 2:55 pm
Wesley:
Why do you waste your valuable time arguing w/ people of bad faith? They know that an EO is meaningless and can be rescinded today/tomorrow/next year (Mexico City Policy, anyone?) and, furthermore, would not withstand a court challenge from, say, Planned Parenthood because the actual law *provides* for the funding in question and law supersedes a mere EO.
March 27th, 2010 | 5:19 pm
Mr. Smith, do you honestly believe that Obama would undo the Executive Order during his term in office? And do you honestly believe that the Executive Order will be deliberately disobeyed by branches of government? It is time to realize that the health care bill has been passed and the only things left to worry about is the fine tuning of the bill. Wake up and smell the coffee like the rest of society.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Yes, he would undo it. In a heartbeat, he would undo it.
March 27th, 2010 | 8:17 pm
This is a massive abortion funding and subsidizing bill, and a radical departure from the long standing widely support policy of not using government funds for abortion. It would subsidize plans covering abortion throughout pregnancy for any reason. I don’t know why the abortion supporters in these posts can’t get out there like Planned Parenthood and claim victory. It’s not fun to call your president a liar, but Obama is a bald faced liar on this. He’s lied about his record on abortion, he lied about what’s in the bill over and over and he’s lied when he says pro-lifers are lying about the bill. Politicians lie. Obama, Reid and Pelosi are just more brazen. To bad Obama doesn’t have a little slick Willie in him so people love him when he’s lying.
The Stupak amendment was necessary because it most closely replicated the Hyde amendment. Sebelius and Boxer both said that the Nelson-Reid amendment was an accounting procedure, not anything that would keep women from getting subsidized abortions through the health care plan.
The bill will fund and subsidize abortion in about 9 or 10 Ways.
1. It directly funds community health care centers, of which Planned Parenthood would be a beneficiary. $11 billion has been set aside for community health care centers with no restrictions to prevent abortion coverage. Abortion advocates are already discussing how these centers can use these funds to pay for abortion and are campaigning for these centers to perform abortions.
2. The Reid bill subsidizes health care plans which cover abortion. These plans will cover tens of millions of people.
3. Massive pools of money are appropriated with no abortion restrictions. National Right to Life notes that “The Senate bill contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180).”
4. Bureaucrats are granted authority to force health care plans to cover abortion. It does not mandate that they do so, but it gives them the authority. Its hard to see how a president like Barack Obama, who opposed protections for children born during an abortion and promised Planned Parenthood that abortion would be part of health care, would not appoint someone to mandate abortion coverage. The Mikulski Amendment to the Reid bill would require insurers to cover any preventative service. There’s not much doubt the the most pro-abortion president ever who promised Planned Parenthod that “reproductive health care” would be at the center of his health care bill, will not at least try to have abortion defined as a preventative service and private health care plans will be forced to cover abortions.
5. Plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program will be allowed to cover abortion. No federal plan is currently allowed to cover abortion.
6. There is no restriction on abortion in the Indian Health program.
7. Restrictions related to direct funding (not to be confused with subsidies) of abortion are attached to the status of the Hyde amendment. They are booby trapped. These restrictions on direct funding restrictions through programs through the exchange will remain in place as long as the Hyde amendment, which bans funding of abortions through Medicare, continues to be reauthorized every year. These restrictions will disappear if the Hyde amendment is not reauthorized. Everyone worth his or her salt on this issue knows Hyde is not a permanent law, but a yearly amendment that can be stopped by either house of Congress or a presidential veto.
8. There’s an abortion mandate. At least one subsidized health care plan in every area will be required to cover abortion.
9. Enrollees in government subsidized insurance plans will be required to pay an abortion surcharge whether or not they agree with abortion. If an employer CHOOSES that plan, employees must take it or leave it.
10. The Reid bill allows states to opt out of abortion covering plans, but even where that may happen, residents of those states will still be required to pay for abortions in other states.
Finally, something like the Stupak amendment would be necessary just like the Hyde Amendment was for Medicaid through HHS (it won’t cover the direct appropriations through this bill) was necessary. The courts have ruled that unless abortion is explicitly excluded by statute (the legislature) abortion is deemed to be part of reproductive health care. Hence the Hyde amendment was necessary. The taxpayer was paying for 300k abortions a year until Hyde stopped it. Obama knows his EO is worthless and will probably use the EO to wipe his back side soon. He knows it doesn’t trump statutes.
It’s probalby beside the point, but I agree with Wesley that this was intentionally deceptive. I read provisions out loud to friends and then explained what they meant after figuring them out myself. Not a few expletives were aimed at the authors of this bill from those people. The way they tried to hide abortion was outrageous. But, there’s a silver lining for the pro-life movement. This shows that generally speaking, abortion supporting politicians have to hide what they mean and the provisions in the law. That shows the progress the pro-life movement has made.
March 27th, 2010 | 8:26 pm
The POTUS just gave political cover- to the morons that thought they were getting something, when in reality they were bamboozled. The EO only covers a special area in which Abortions are not going to be in. The Abortions are being dealt with outside the agencies that the EO covers…so YES IT IS WORTHLESS as the POTUS is.
March 27th, 2010 | 8:38 pm
Wesley, I forgot to note my source for the info in the last post. It’s from our press release that we distilled from the work of National Right to Life and then maybe something from AUL and the Catholic Bishops. I’m sure it’s no big deal to them, but just in case someone noticed the similarity to The List that National Right to Life has on how abortion is funded, that’s where most of it came from. Being a downstream info provider (it’s not necessary to source very often and it is expected that we taken their words and run with it.
March 27th, 2010 | 8:42 pm
Wesley, I didn’t mention that most of the info above is taken from National Right to Life if anyone thinks it’s plagerism. Down stream info providers are expected to take information from the upstream providers and broadcast it wide where they live or have influence. They consider it a compliment, job well done, what they want to happen when it does. It doesn’t matter to them, but in case anyone notes the similarity, that’s where it came from.
March 27th, 2010 | 8:57 pm
Executive Order does not over-ride statute mandate. Executive orders are not “laws’
Obama’s word’s will be useless.
March 28th, 2010 | 9:52 am
[...] Obamacare: Dishonest Bill Will Permit Federal Funding of Abortion … The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Freedom Vigil” Permit IssuedUtah Non-resident permit classNRA-ILA :: Permit to Purchase Bill Handed a Defeat in Maryland!EPA wants to veto Arch Coal mine permitHalo Reach ULTDPUAINFO.com : The Big Mistake ALL Men Make On A Date By David DeAngeloPeople with a house and wants to do some remodelin: Vertical Jump …Don't Make the Top 30 SEO Mistake | WebsHost.netKnights still seek first victory | Standard-Examiner – Ogden …India observes World Theatre Day | Daily Times India View the Contact Powered by Staff [...]
March 28th, 2010 | 10:05 am
@Don Nelson, You said it perfectly. “This is a massive abortion funding and subsidizing bill” Why would they specifically say “No federal funding for abortions”, when they clearly know money will be diverted to perform them. I said the same thing last year when U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston announced that the Army Corps of Engineers approved nearly six million dollars in funding for the waterway and more than 40 million dollars in federal funding is on its way to the port in Savannah for two important projects. I know the port in Savannah does not perform abortions just as community health centers do not, but there is also nothing in the funding that says they cant. Hey we all know abortion is a big profitable business, and when budgets begin to tighten, why wouldn’t the port authority provide a service to subsidize their coffers ed a little. These fantastic arguments are ridiculous!
March 28th, 2010 | 11:20 am
Michael, Obama knows it’s worthless too. The man is a phony through and through. Hypocrites are one thing. Phonies are another. He made himself out to be some sort of middle of the road candidate, but we are seeing what a fraud that is.
Will, thanks. Unless this is all banned, by statute, it can be used for abortions under “reproductive health care” (code for abortion and the administration says it includes abortion), and other overlapping programs. The Mikulski amendment is dangerous and she would not let abortion be exempted.
To born since 1976 when the Hyde amendment (which does not apply to the health care reform law) was first passed, many of you owe your life to the Hyde amendment. Many of you were unexpected-you were unwanted-you were unplanned and in the way of your parents… that made you targets of abortion. But many of you young people are alive today because Congressman Hyde refused to allow taxpayers to pay for your abortion-to kill you by abortion. Many of you owe your lives to the Hyde Amendment and you owe it to future generations to stand up a ban on taxpayer, government funding of abortion. It could have been you. Life is good. It’s a precious gift. You young people have always deserved to be here and to be protected in law and welcomed in life. Your right to life should never have been dependent upon escaping your mother’s womb or upon a world that was ready for and not inconvenienced by you. Our nation wouldn’t be the same without you. Don’t let future generations of Americans be killed by government funding of abortion.
March 28th, 2010 | 4:54 pm
[...] bill does an end run around the Hyde amendment, (that prevents Medicaid funding of abortion), by directly appropriating [...]
March 29th, 2010 | 7:34 am
[...] for the good. The healthcare bill is an example of such a hope-filled new idea. However, the healthcare bill contains within it some very old ideas, too, such as the idea that abortion is necessary for the [...]
March 29th, 2010 | 8:23 am
Mike,
An executive order does not apply to the “branches” of government, only the executive branch. It’s a memo from the President telling all the cabinet departments what to do.
March 29th, 2010 | 11:37 am
mG-I hate to tell you this, but your views are not shared by the majority of “society.” You and thirty percent of the population smell your own special house blend.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact