Illustrating the power of the abortion issue in an election year–and keeping a promise to Rep. Stupak whose vote guaranteed passage of Obamacare–HHS Secretary Sebelius banned coverage for elective abortions in the new high risk insurance pools. Pro choice groups are not amused. From the story:
Anti-abortion groups leapt into action last month when the National Right to Life Committee warned that elective abortions would be covered under a Pennsylvania insurance program created by the health care reform law. The Susan B. Anthony List and the Family Research Council blasted the news to the media and supporters. NRLC began scouring other state plans for similar provisions. Top congressional Republicans sent a letter of protest to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. And within a day, the anti-abortion groups got what they wanted: a nationwide ban on coverage for most elective abortions in the so-called high-risk insurance pools, a position reaffirmed in a Health and Human Services regulation released on Thursday.
Abortion rights advocates were caught completely off-guard. Planned Parenthood and NARAL didn’t publicly petition HHS until after the new ban was imposed. And it took sympathetic Democrats on the Hill a full 10 days to write a letter expressing disappointment with the HHS — and even then, they were so squeamish about the issue that they never even used the word “abortion” in their protest. For abortion rights advocates, the HHS episode was both a reminder of the health reform battle they lost and a warning about the risks ahead: Having a president on their side doesn’t mean they can sit back and expect success. “This is not the outcome we expected,” said Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood vice president for public policy. “We now know we need to be vigilant to make sure there aren’t other areas of the law where there is silence. There is a whole host of areas that we’re going to be watching like a hawk.”
The PP representative thought–correctly in my view–that Obamacare is meant to at least indirectly fund abortion, But to pass Obamacare, firm assurance had to be given, and it is too soon to break those pledges. Pro life groups deserve credit for forcing the administration’s hand.
One final point: This story–and particularly PP’s reaction in the last quote–illustrate how right I was when I said that the regulations that effectuate Obamacare will really tell the tale about most of the controversial issues in this law. Unless, we can get it repealed and replaced with a better reform, that is.
July 30th, 2010 | 8:36 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap and Swarm for Life, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Obama Bans Elective Abortion Coverage in New High Risk Insurance Pools » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/0n37K [...]
July 31st, 2010 | 7:48 am
But to pass Obamacare, firm assurance had to be given, and it is too soon to break those pledges.
Obama says “This bill doesn’t provide federal funding for abortion”.
Response: “He’s lying”.
Obama signs an executive order spelling this out in black and white.
Response: “He won’t keep his pledge”
Obama keeps his pledge, pissing off Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
Response: “He’ll break it eventually. Just you wait.”
There’s just no pleasing some people.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 31st, 2010 at 10:26 am
Not on this. The agenda is clear. That’s why the Hyde Amendment approach was rejected. That would have made it quite clear.
July 31st, 2010 | 10:28 am
This is an interesting sentence: “Planned Parenthood and NARAL didn’t publicly petition HHS until after the new ban was imposed.”
But if the executive order was anything other than a lie (which I think they thought and hoped–and in fact, it did not have legal force in itself) then how is this a “new” thing?
Moreover, the use of “elective” abortions in the story is confusing. Actually, the PA proposal said it would not cover “elective” abortions but then referred to PA law to define “necessary” abortions, and the definition _there_ was extremely broad–it included anything that a single doctor deemed necessary based on all aspects of a woman’s situation.
The pro-aborts can’t get their story straight. They want at one and the same time to paint pro-lifers as “liars” for trying to say that abortion coverage will be provided and at the same time to say that they “didn’t expect” abortion coverage not to be provided, that they are disappointed, etc. I mean, c’mon guys, which is it?
July 31st, 2010 | 10:30 am
And Raven, it is _absolutely clear_ that the only reason the HHS did what she did was because of an outcry by NRLC. The wording of the original PA proposal, its acceptance without modification, and the timing of the HHS secretary’s response all point in the same direction. So, no, there was no original good faith. What is going to happen is that NRLC is going to act as watchdog and _if_ they are successful they will simply be painted as having been liars all along. The facts say otherwise. Indeed, the very “disappointment” of the abortion groups says otherwise.
July 31st, 2010 | 11:11 am
Wes: “Unless, we can get it repealed and replaced with a better reform, that is. ”
Well, grab a helmet and get in the game, Wes.
All you have to do is get a Republican senator or representative to come up with a better bill that covers as many people for less money and retains the ban on prior condition exclusions, and that will pass both houses of Congress.
Let us know when that’s ready, ok?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 31st, 2010 at 11:39 am
We’ll see after November, padraig.
July 31st, 2010 | 12:15 pm
Hope you’re not holding your breath, Wes.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 31st, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I think we can dismantle the worst parts of Obamacare, which as written, would help a small minority at the expense of the vast majority. Time will tell. Ironically, one idea is for high risk pools to help pay for the difficult to insure. That is now the law under Obamacare, but it is only temporary until the full deal is implemented. Thus, you could keep those, and do away with the buy insurance mandate and particularly, the centralized takeover of standards of care and payment by the Feds that will lead to NHS style rationing.
July 31st, 2010 | 11:08 pm
Hopefully Republicans noticed what NRLC did with this, that is, if they are capable. They still have too many people who think we are in 1992, not 2010 and think that the pro-life issue is a losing issue at the ballot box and in terms of influence. I don’t think Obama’s EO meant anything. It was a joke. NRLC exposed a lie here and backed down. Take note republicans.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact