Ten Ways Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare Funds Abortion

Posted by on Oct 30th, 2010 and filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry from your site

(Don Nelson) - There are still people arguing that Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare does not fund abortion. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare does fund and subsidize abortion and represents a dramatic departure from the long standing, widely accepted policy of not covering abortion with government funds. Here are ten ways or things to know about how it funds abortion. For more detailed information, see “The List” in National Right to Life’s Media Backgrounder:Abortion Policy and “Health Care Reform”

1. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare will directly fund 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 pay for abortion.

2. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare will subsidize health care plans which provide abortion for tens of millions of people. Plans may not be required to do so, but they are NOT prohibited from doing so. This is a departure from the longstanding, widely accepted policy of not covering abortion with government funds. Claims that women would have to pay for them with personal funds through a convoluted book keeping scheme can argue with Barbara Boxer and Kathleen Sebelius who say it’s only an accounting procedure and of no consequence.

3. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare contains an abortion mandate. At least one government subsidized health care plan in every area will be required to cover abortion.

4. Enrollees in these government subsidized insurance plans will be required to pay an abortion surcharge whether or not they agree with abortion. To the argument that people do not have to choose an abortion covering plan, if the employer CHOOSES that plan, you’ll take it or not have health care.

5. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare gives bureaucrats authority to force health care plans to cover abortion. It does not mandate that they do so, but it gives them the authority. It’s hard to see how a president like Barack Obama would not appoint someone to mandate abortion coverage. The Mikulski amendment would require insurers to cover any preventative service. Look for abortion to be defined as a preventative service and private health care plans to be forced to cover abortions.

6. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare 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.

7. There are other massive pools of money with no abortion restrictions. National Right to Life says that Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare 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). This summer National Right to Life found three states applying for funds under this provision. NRL’s discovery of this forced the Obama administration to deny those funds but the administration said its decision “is not a precedent for other programs or policies…”

8. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare allows plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program to cover abortion. This is a dramatic departure from long standing widely supported policy of not funding abortion with government funds.

9. There is no restriction on abortion in the Indian Health program. This provision negates Reid’s previous vote to stop funding of abortion through the Indian health program.

10. Language in the Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare that restricts direct funding (not to be confused with subsidies) of abortion would be attached to the status of the Hyde amendment. That is, if the Hyde amendment-which only covers Medicaid abortions- continues to be reauthorized every year, direct funding restrictions in the health care reform law will remain in place. If the yearly approved Hyde amendment were to not pass, those restrictions of direct funding of abortion through health care will vanish.

In his debate with Sharron Angle, Reid tried once more to fool people into thinking that the Hyde Amendment prevents government funding of abortion through Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare. Reid knows that the Hyde amendment only prevents public funding of abortion through Medicaid but will have NO impact on preventing abortion from being funding through his health care law. He knows that Hyde is not a permanent law but a yearly amendment attached every year for the last thirty three years to the Health and Human Services bill.

Harry Reid had the chance to make sure his health care law would never fund abortion, but he refused to insert language to do so and fought against amendments that would at the behest of the abortion industry. Reid’s health care law funds and subsidizes abortion. He made sure it does.

(Don Nelson is president of Nevada LIFE)

3 Responses for “Ten Ways Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare Funds Abortion”

  1. Dr Bluebeard says:

    For the following reasons, I assume this article is simply another insidious attempt at trying to change the balance of power to the Republican side. I’m not even going to research it to try to confirm or disprove the statements.

    Here’s why: Re: the “5 WAYS OBAMACARE FUNDS ABORTIONS” claim: It a LIE !!

    I’m VERY UPSET by the broad statements at the site http://tiny.cc/7m3zf. It makes a very simple, but apparently deceptive statement: “5 ways Obamacare funds abortions.”

    However it does NOT present evidence that confirms the charges. Such grand statements without proof is UNDERHANDED and INSIDIOUS. It forces a reader to do extensive research for themselves or SIMPLY ACCEPT AT FACE-VALUE. Most people will obviously accept it rather than study a 900 page document.

    When I looked at the “5 ways” statements, they were quite vague and impossible to verify. I did at least an hour of searches of HR 3590 and was NOT able to confirm ANY of those statements as true. (To further COMPLICATE and CLOUD the issue, NO valid dates were given except the initial Jan 2010 date when the bill was first crafted. How is anyone supposed to refute or confirm FINAL results of the bill, given that vague approach?)

    Therefore, I am choosing to believe that these are innuendos and outright deceptions. If they were true statements, they should have made things easier to identify and confirm or refute.

    I am DISGUSTED with this attempt to vilify Obama using such pathetic tactics. Most people quickly accept what they want to hear to support their argument without taking time to research or confirm the neutrality (objectivity) of the source.

  2. Don Nelson says:

    Bluebeard, no one could possibly take a person like you seriously and think of him or her as anything more than a shill when you say “I’m not even going to research it to try to confirm or disprove the statements.” How convenient. That means there’s no ground for you to “assume this article is simply another insidious attempt at trying to change the balance of power to the Republican side.”

    If you’d like to show from the text of the bill how my claims are untrue, or the article you link to, you are more than welcome to present evidence. I’ll be simple for you and give you evidences from abortion supporters that they believe it’s in there. If there’s anything insidious, it’s Harry Reid’s willingness to say and do anything to hold on to his power. He’s been willing to lie and mislead the public that the Hyde Amendment is the law of the land and will keep abortion out of health care even though he knows from his 30 years of voting in the Congress that Hyde is not permanent law, that it is a yearly amendment to the DHSS funding bill and that it does NOT apply to his health care law.

    As I noted in my article, Senator Boxer and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and others have guaranteed their abortion supporters that abortion is in the bill and any of the phony restrictions on subsidizing abortions are an accounting procedure or of no consequence. Boxer is the one who put the accounting scheme in there in December to mollify Ben Nelson. Sebelius is the one who is going to administer and enforce the law. You can argue with them.

    Further, Harry Reid, the man you are shilling for, knew all along that abortion was in the bill. As we wrote in our press release on March 21, 2010 while Bart Stupak was caving into the abortion democrats, “The agreement between President Obama and Bart Stupak to issue an executive order to prevent government funding of abortion is an admission that the health care bill funds abortion. It also admits that the Hyde Amendment does NOT cover the health care reform bills. Obama’s promise of an executive order also demonstrates that Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s nine months of insistence that the health care bill is not about abortion, is not an abortion bill, that the status quo on abortion will not change, that the Hyde Amendment would prevent health care funding of abortion, that there will be no funding of abortion and calling pro-lifers liars for doing so shows a callous disregard for the truth and open contempt for the public.”

    Let me add, Harry Reid is a bald face liar when it comes to abortion. He will say anything to help him hold onto his pernicious grip on power. So will his supporters. That’s nothing new.

  3. […] alcoholics, or anyone else whose behavior directly leads to their healthcare costs (except for abortions- oh wait, Women […]

Leave a Reply