Obamacarians assure us that the new law prohibits coverage for abortion. That’s not true. It was merely one of the many shell games played by its supporters. The law left to the bureaucracy to include abortion as an indirectly covered procedure in subsidized state exchange-authorized policies–which considering who is head of HHS–it almost certainly will.
That was why the “Stupack Amendment,” introduced by the late (politically) pro life Congressman was fought so hard (costing him his job when he caved) by the pro choice crowd. They didn’t want a permanent Hyde Amendment. (The president’s executive order was a mere sop. It can be withdrawn at the stroke of a pen.)
To ensure that no federal money pays for any abortion (except in case of rape, incest, or physical threat to the mother), opponents of federally subsidized or paid for abortion introduced the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (H.R. 3), with 178 co-sponsors at last count. From the legislation:
SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS.
No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS THAT COVER ABORTION.
None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.
(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,
(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and
(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.
The bill does not prevent private or state-only funded coverage (the latter being the law currently regarding assisted suicide), and specifically exempts the rape, incest, or physical health threat to the mother from its scope, so there actually could be funding in a few cases.
I support this bill. I believe that, legality aside, public policy should disfavor abortion–and funding restrictions clearly promote that goal. Thus, women or couples who want one of the nearly 1 million surgical abortions performed in this country each year, each of which stills a beating heart, can pay for it themselves. Maybe then sexually active couples would take more responsibility toward avoiding unwanted fecundity. It’s not that difficult.
(I would also like to see Planned Parenthood subsidies ended, at least proportionate to the extent that its activities involve abortion. I am sure there are plenty of very wealthy pro choice supporters who could fund “scholarships” for pregnancy terminations.)
January 26th, 2011 | 1:13 pm
What makes it even worse is that abortion is a very cheap procedure that does not even require insurance. At least in Michigan, only 1% of abortions are paid for through insurance: http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/abortion/PaymentSource.asp
Yet, also looking at Michigan statistics, once you add taxpayer funding in, abortions skyrocket (removed tax-funding in 1988). If they were willing to leave that out, they could have gotten a lot more that they wanted, but they continue to demand public funding of purely “elective” abortion. I wonder if this deserves to be filed in the category of “pro-abortion”? If we say “choice” is the issue at heart, I don’t understand why we have no choice about supporting another person’s choice. Meanwhile, hundreds of pro-life pregnancy centers provide counseling, diapers, clothes, classes, etc. for free with often zero social service funding. I don’t think we should do it, but I wonder if we subsidized those centers helping women keep their children for a change if Planned Parenthood would get on board with it?
January 26th, 2011 | 7:13 pm
The risk, as has arisen in Britain and elsewhere, is that taxpayers will get the worst of both worlds: paying for fertility treatment, especially in vitro fertilization (IVF), and paying to abort those fetuses if the mother (or couple) changes her mind. The taxpayers are out many thousands of dollars for IVF, just to have the resulting pregnancy aborted.
Such a case has initiated serious debate in Australia, which has essentially a single payer system. A couple there with three boys conceived naturally also had a daughter who died early. The wife then conceived twin boys using IVF, but chose to abort them to try for a sex-selected girl, again using IVF. She and her husband cited their continuing heartbreak at their daughter’s loss for the decision.
The Australian state where they live has rules against most sex selection with IVF, and their decision to abort apparently healthy male fetuses that taxpayers funded has inspired even many pro-choice advocates to condemn the couple for such incredible selfishness and squandering of tax money.
Such shenanigans will happen here if Obamacare isn’t substantially modified, especially with abortion funding. You can bet on it.
Here’s a link on the Australian couple:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345057/Couple-sons-abort-twin-boys-IVF–try-baby-girl-daughter-died.html
January 26th, 2011 | 7:59 pm
The problem with this bill is that it will affect the poor disproportionately, because it does not cover private insurance. I think that, regardless of your opinion on abortion (I recently changed my mind to pro-choice from pro-life), it should be taken into account that this bill is classist.
January 26th, 2011 | 10:18 pm
JustChris, if you are talking about Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NAF and their big supporters and leading political allies getting on board with funding to crisis pregnancy centers that offer alternatives to abortion, try to discourage abortion, and help with some other basic needs for women with crisis pregnancies, the answer is no, they won’t get on board with it. They are trying to shut them down, and have a campaign to do so and make it difficult to operate. For the most part, they are pro-abortion. They market abortion, are pushing to up their numbers. They are in the abortion business. For those who complain about them being fake clinics, a leading abortion clinic federation knew about the butcher of Philadelphia and didn’t report him. A wise man once said before you take a speck out of someone else’s eye, get the plank out of your own. Abortion advocates acusations about these being fake clinics fall on deaf ears when they tolerate and don’t report and root out abortuaries that are unfit for a dog pound.
January 27th, 2011 | 2:21 pm
Astrid, if the government should pay for something because otherwise poor people would suffer disproportionately, then why is abortion any different from anything else?
What would we not be liable for, once we accept the argument that it’s “classist” for a poor person to have less access to something?
Sex is a voluntary activity, done for pleasure.
January 27th, 2011 | 4:48 pm
According to Gallup only 19% of Americans are opposed to abortion under any circumstances. The remainder believe it should be available in all or some circumstances. So, Wesley advocates that we let fewer than one-fifth of the population dictate terms for the other four-fifths. Something smells a little fishy about that. Perhaps someone can explain why the minority should rule.
January 27th, 2011 | 8:28 pm
HW, as I remarked in a previous thread, beware of citing public opinion polls on issues concerning life and death or human rights. Abortion is certainly life or death for the unborn. Majorities among Americans would if polled have favored interning Japanese-Americans as was done during World War II and would have favored Jim Crow laws, and a majority of those polled during the war did favor sterilizing or simply exterminating all Japanese after our victory.
This is, by the way, the same American public who in large numbers believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It is also the same public who oppose Obamacare as “socialist medicine” even as they or their relatives use Medicare, Medicaid, or military health care systems funded predominantly or completely by the taxpayer. (No fan of Obamacare here, but a disconnect does exist.)
Most of the polls on abortion show a deep conflict. A majority do favor its availability for rape, incest, or to save the mother from physical harm. So do I. But only a small minority—comparable in numbers to the fringe right who oppose abortion for any reason, even in the hard cases such as rape—favor allowing abortion at any time for any reason without significant restrictions.
Given the easy availability of birth control measures, there should be little reason for abortion outside the instances cited. The reality is that most of the nearly 1.5 million of these procedures that take place in the US annually are done for patently frivolous reasons such as “it’s inconvenient to have a child right now” or “I just don’t want his child”. On a gut level many sense that abortion as a substitute for birth control is murder. After all, it certainly kills a person in the making.
And that’s where the problems arise with these polls you mention. Barring those extreme circumstances such as rape or a medical emergency, a right to life outweighs a right to vote or any poll any day. You wouldn’t want your continued existence to be based on a Gallup or any other poll either.
January 27th, 2011 | 9:22 pm
History Writer: I’m not Wesley, but….
The minority should rule because our nation was founded on the idea that it is self-evident that all of us are entitled to the right to life.
There have been (and I believe will be again) majorities in favor of slavery, incarcerating or killing ethnic minorities, etc. but there is a natural hierarchy to human rights – a natural reality that says “not being murdered” is more urgent and important than “not being discriminated against in housing”, which is in turn a more fundamental right than the right to not be called names in the schoolyard.
These things may all be “rights”, but they are not all equal.
Your right to vote is a legitimate right. But it is less fundamental than someone elses’ right to not be killed.
So the operative question is, at what point does human life begin? We have good reason for arguing that life begins at conception, but I have yet to hear any compelling arguments for any other point at which a non-human “thing” turns into a living human being.
January 27th, 2011 | 10:26 pm
HistoryWriter,
That is hardly the relevant question to consider. Thankfully the pollsters have asked this exact question – whether the federal government should fund abortions in their health care initiatives – and the results were 67% against such funding. (Quinnipiac, 1/2010) Other results include: 55% (Pew, 11/2009), 67% (ICR, 9/2009) 61% (CNN, 11/2009) The flip question – if government mandates health coverage should it include abortion – found out 38% (POS, 11/2009) and 13% (Rasmussen, 9/2009) support.
When then are we allowing 13% (less than 1/7th) of the population dictate what should be mandated in the new government health care initiatives?
January 28th, 2011 | 12:00 am
HW, nice try but you have it backwards. The polls do not argue for the policy of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NAF, NOW and etc, that is, abortion throughout pregnancy for any reason-abortion on demand. Polling shows that more people oppose all or almost all abortions than support some or all abortion. A majority opposes almost all abortions, with exceptions for the rare instances of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Pro-life is the new normal. Gallup’s been calling it that for almost 2 years.
Stop putting words in Wesley’s mouth. He’s not advocating the no exceptions position. The position he is advocating for recently is a ban on public funding of abortion and an end to later abortion are supported by wide majorities of Americans. Why should such a shrill majority of abortion advocates get their way against the large majority of Americans who oppose public funding and who oppose abortions after 20 weeks?
I agree with the effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood and the sex revolutionaries have had their hands on the wheel of sexual public policy for more than a generation. The sexual crises we are facing today are a result of their failed sexual policies and ideology. They are the problem and cannot fix it. Before they got their hands on the nation’s sexual policy, we had only a few of the 30 or more sexually transmitted diseases or the breakdown of the family that threatens our nation. Not one cent of taxpayer funding should be given to Planned Parenthood except to close their doors and clean up the toxic moral waste they left behind. Not a cent should be spent to continue their failed policies of the last 40 years. We can’t take it anymore.
January 28th, 2011 | 9:29 am
Don Nelson:
I think you, Charles Ferry, Blake and K-Man will want to work out your differences. Should abortion be restricted because a majority wants to restrict it, or because a minority wants to restrict it? I don’t see how so-called pro-lifers can have it both ways.
That said, I have yet to understand how a majority of Americans can call themselves “pro-life” while a group comprising 79% favor abortion under some circumstances. That’s like being “a little bit pregnant,” isn’t it? I mean, one either thinks abortion is killing the innocent, or one doesn’t. The Church teaches that abortion is a grave sin, and places restrictions even on abortions which might be medically necessary to save the mother’s life (reference Bishop Olmstead’s recent decertification of a Catholic hospital in California). Steve Ertelt of “Life News,” who sometimes posts here, has pointed out repeatedly that being Catholic and supporting abortion are mutually exclusive. I take it the same attitude is the standard among most members of conservative Christian denominations.
So then, are you suggesting that pro-lifers have now come up with a new definition of “pro-life,” or that Catholics have developed a new take on the magisterium?
January 28th, 2011 | 10:16 am
Don Nelson:
I almost forgot to address your comments about Planned Parenthood.
You seem convinced that because PP “got their hands on the nation’s sexual policy” the number of sexually transmitted diseases increased and “the breakdown of the family that threatens our nation” occurred. I was unaware that there WAS a “national sexual policy,” let alone that anyone ever “got their hands on it,” but when you go on to claim that PP increased the number of sexually transmitted diseases to the present-day 30 or so — well, I think your argument begins to enter the realm of the bizarre. Have you told the CDC about this? I can just see tomorrow’s headlines: “PLANNED PARENTHOOD GOT HANDS ON NATIONAL SEX POLICY – INVENTED HIV.”
Surely you don’t think illicit sex came into existence when the Planned Parenthood Federation was established (1941), or when the birth control pill was developed (c. 1961), do you? Believe it or not, unmarried people were not only “doing it” even during the era of “Father Knows Best” and “Leave it to Beaver,” but during the era of World War II, the decade of the Great Depression, the “roaring twenties,” the ragtime era and “la belle epoque.” As the French say: “tout ca change, tout c’est la meme chose.”
I would also like to point out that the paradigm of the American family began changing long before Margaret Sanger founded the Birth Control League in 1921. Among the causes: America’s 19th century transition from an agrarian to an industrial economy, the growth of cities, the revolution in travel, World War I and the splintering of extended family groups. No-fault divorce which, arguably, IS a threat to the future of American families, was a creature of state legislatures, not of Planned Parenthood.
Really, Don. Next thing we know you’re going to blame contraception for the ongoing deterioration of western civilization, for the kids’ poor science and math grades and for the trash that passes for prime-time TV programming. How about a little reality?
HW
January 28th, 2011 | 1:35 pm
Per John Cole, I just want to note that support for this bill means that you objectively protect rapists over women and girls. A bill section you do not quote switches the rape exception from general to the limited category of “forcible rape.” So in order to retain the right of terminating a forced pregnancy, the victim of sexual violence must demonstrate they were physically damaged beyond the coerced sex itself.
If this bill is acceptable to the anti-abortion faction, then the common name for that view would be better rendered the Forced Birth Movement.
A disgrace.
January 29th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
HW, you misrepresented what Wesley was proposing. What else is new? He was proposing a funding ban on abortion and a ban on late abortion, not a no exceptions ban on abortion.
Charles Ferry has his numbers right and Americans oppose funding of abortion. How does it feel to be part of the abortion fringe HW?
As to your questioning why so many pro-lifers would make exceptions for abortions in rare instances like rape and incest-less than half a percent of all abortions, and the life of the mother, first go figure out how so many pro-choice and abortion rights supporters can support so many limitations and would ban abortion in so many instances and still call themselves pro-choice. You can’t be called truly pro-choice by Planned Parenthood out here in NV unless you agree with them on everything. You’ll just be called “leans pro.” Which means, according to Planned Parenthood’s designations, that maybe 20 percent of the nation is pro-choice on abortion.
We don’t need a new definition for pro-life. Was GWB pro-life or not? Remember him HW, that intolerant, anti-woman’s rights, anti-choice president or whatever you people call him? No way you’d call him pro-choice. I don’t think anyone in the abortion movement would say he was. But GWB would be one of those pro-lifers you cite who think abortion should sometimes be legal in rare exceptions to make us think America is a pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-abortion rights nation. A majority of Americans would eliminate about 95 percent of abortions just like GWB. When someone like GWB opposes 95 percent of all abortions but makes exceptions for the life of the mother (4 or so percent), and for rape and incest, less than half a percent, those people are not pro-choice, do not believe in abortion on demand and are considered pro-life and anti-abortion-or what you abortion advocates call anti-choice. A majority take that position. Pro-life is the new normal. Deal with it.
Your argument that society was changing and the sex revolutionaries are therefore not responsible for the sexual chaos and the breakdown of the family is about as convincing as abortion advocates’ mantra that there were 1.2 million abortions before Roe and Roe and the legalizations before Roe in CA, NY and elsewhere changed nothing. If there were 1.2 million abortions before Roe, they have to explain why there were only 700k+ abortions in the year after Roe and it took several years to get to that 1.2 million number. O well. Legalizing abortion dramatically increased abortion. In the same way, there was some breakdown of the family as there always has been before the sixties radicals and the sex revolutionaries got their hands on the wheel of sexual public policy or the public microphone and in the class rooms. But they’ve exacerbated everything. And the breakdown of the family since the 60′s when these people got their hands on the wheel of sexual policy and the free love, free sex movement they advocated is their fault. It’s been a disaster. We didn’t have nearly as much divorce, adultery, abortion, kids living in single parent homes (my 3 brothers and I grew up in one after our parents’ divorce), sexually transmitted diseases and etc. We have enough data. The agenda, propaganda, ideology of Planned Parenthood, Kinsey and the sex revolutionaries has been a disaster. They are responsible and can’t fix it. Not a cent should be given to these people except to close their doors and to clean up the toxic moral waste they’ve left behind.
February 2nd, 2011 | 4:54 pm
Don:
So you CAN be “pro-life” and still allow an innocent baby to be slaughtered in its mother’s womb, depending on the conditions that caused it to be there? Is THAT what you’re saying? I AM impressed. It looks like you also believe it’s possible for a woman to be “just a little bit pregnant.”
As for the conjectured “good old days” — dream on. Kinsey didn’t cause a sexual revolution; he simply reported what people told him they were doing. And that was in the mid-1940s, a decade before “leave it to Beaver.” Sorry Don, but to paraphrase Bob Dylan: “the times they have a-changed…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact