Obama Care and abortions

I think that even people who are fervently pro-abortion  might appreciate that pro-Life people don’t want their money used to fund abortions.  I also don’t want my money used for vanity plastic surgeries.  There are just some things your neighbors shouldn’t have to pay for.  Nevertheless, the Obama Care plan does provide for federal funding of abortions.  If that’s not bad enough, Pelosi and Obama are lying like crazy to hide that fact.  (See this too for Sebelius’ lies.)

Just FYI, here’s the bill’s text

SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
(a) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—
(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title), and subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D)—
(i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and
(ii) the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.
(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—
(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—
The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—
(i) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—
The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary—
(I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2);
(II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no Federal funds are used for such coverage; and
(III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision of this title, takes all necessary steps to assure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for a community health insurance option’s coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
(ii) STATE REQUIREMENT.—
If a State requires, in addition to the essential health benefits required under section 1323(b)(3)(A), coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a community health insurance option offered in such State, the State shall assure that no funds flowing through or from the community health insurance option, and no other Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of providing coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i). The United States shall not bear the insurance risk for a State’s required coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
(iii) EXCEPTIONS.—Nothing in this subparagraph shall apply to coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(ii)by the community health insurance option. Services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be covered to the same extent as such services are covered under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(D) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—
(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and
(II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
(ii) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of clause (i)—
(I) a plan shall be treated as described in clause (i)(II) if the plan does not provide coverage of services described in either subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii); and
(II) if a State has one Exchange covering more than 1 insurance market, the Secretary shall meet the requirements of clause (i) separately with respect to each such market.
(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.—
In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not described in subparagraph (A), segregate an amount equal to the actuarial amounts determined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees from the amounts described in subparagraph (A).
(C) ACTUARIAL VALUE OF OPTIONAL SERVICE COVERAGE.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a qualified health plan of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).
(ii) CONSIDERATIONS.—
In making such estimate, the Secretary—
(I) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care;
(II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and
(III) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.
(3) PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—
No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(b) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—
(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding—
(i) conscience protection;
(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.
(3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.—
Nothing in this subsection shall alter the rights and obligations of employees and employers under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(c) APPLICATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES LAWS.—
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve any health care provider from providing emergency services as required by State or Federal law, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known as ‘‘EMTALA’’).

If you’re thinking, as I am, that the above is completely gobbledygook, you’re right. You need to chart the language to understand it.  But there are a few clues as to what’s really go on.  Once is the provider conscience protection, which would be irrelevant if there was no abortion under the bill.   The second is that premise that existing federal and state laws regarding abortion continue to be applicable, and we know abortion is legal under both.

The last giveaway is the promise to “segregate” federal monies so that no monies go to abortion.  In case you missed basic economics 101, money is fungible.  If a community health center that happens to provide abortions gets $100,000 of taxpayer money, the taxpayer is inevitably funding abortions, no matter how much we’re assured that some money came from account A and some from account  B.  The bottom line is that the center is $100,000 richer, courtesy of taxpayer money.

For a more sophisticated, detailed analysis of the Democrats’ chicanery and lies regarding this hot button issue, go here and here.

Regardless of your feelings about abortion, you should feel very offended that your elected officials are engaging in such bald-faced lies, convinced that you’re too stupid to catch them in the act.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Oldflyer says

    Book, I disagree with your premise that pro-abortion people respect the feelings of pro-life folks that their money should not pay for abortions.  If the question  surfaces, I can hear them now: “well, I don’t want my money to pay for war;  I don’t want my money to do this, or do that.”
    I expect Obama, Pelosi, et al would dispute your assertion about the fungible nature of money.  They would tell you with straight faces that this particular dollar is absolutely a non-abortion dollar; only those  privately raised dollars over there are “pro-choice”.  They might even have  some dollars of different shapes or different colors to prove their point–perhaps even have some friendly, white coated abortionists at hand to swear that  those federal dollars could never, no never, be used to fund an abortion.
    By the way, do lawyers write the language in those bills?   Or do they have little scribe gnomes who are kept in dank, dark places and forced to write that stuff for their bread and water?

  2. says

    “If the question  surfaces, I can hear them now: “well, I don’t want my money to pay for war;  I don’t want my money to do this, or do that.””
     
     
    That’s because their idea of a solution is to make things more miserable for everybody else. Since they can’t figure out a way for individual liberty and preference to be acceded to by US law, in this case war and foreign policy, they’re just going to blow up a school as a form of resolution.

  3. Mike Devx says

    > “If the question  surfaces, I can hear them now: “well, I don’t want my money to pay for war;  I don’t want my money to do this, or do that.”

    I agree with Oldflyer.  That is the argument against having our taxes be “directed” via some kind of specification form of where *my* tax dollars must go.  It almost always wouldn’t work.

    The only way it would work is if so many people directed their money to specific purposes, that there wasn’t enough “free money” left over to be allocated towards the politicians’ favorites.  And besides, suppose 50% of us wrote “75% of my money goes to defense” (for example).  The military of course is budgeted much lower than that.  Once the budget for defenseis filled, then all those over-budget dollars would go back into the “free bucket” to be allocated elsewhere.  Even assuming an honest government and honest budgeting process; ha, quite an assumption.

  4. suek says

    When I was elected to the local school board, we were also in a financial crunch.  We found it necessary to eliminate some of the “extras” that parents like for their kid to have available – band, art…stuff like that.  We had some who wanted to donate money – but specifically for the activity they preferred.  We couldn’t – by law – do that.  Any money donated went into the General Fund, and if we were able to use it for the purpose the donor wanted, great.  If it was needed for something else, then it was used for something else.  The problem was solved by someone establishing an independent 501(c) which received donations, and which then purchased whatever they needed to in order to make donors happy.
     
    Come to think about it, I’m not exactly sure how they got around the rules on some of the items, but it’s been an accepted method of funding extras for the school for some 20 years now.  It pays for field trips, teacher supplies beyond what the school supplies, extra musical instruments…that kind of thing.  Nothing huge, but nice to have.  They have an annual dinner, and raise somewhere around $5000 per year.  As I’ve said – we’re a very small district – that’s usually enough.  Their _BIG_ deal was right after they got started – they raised over $100,000 to fund a new double wide portable building to serve as the science room, with computers for every student and screens up front that allowed the students to see what the teacher was doing on her lab table – the equivalent of “gather round and watch”, computer style.

  5. says

    Parliament in Britain tried to get the power of the purse to check the war expenditures of the King, who was bankrupting the nation.
     
     
    Now we need to strip the power of the purse from Congress for much of the same reasons.

  6. says

    “Once the budget for defenseis filled, then all those over-budget dollars would go back into the “free bucket” to be allocated elsewhere.”
     
    Congress aren’t the right ones to make that decision. Once allocated, the money should be like Fort Knoxx. Don’t move it around all the time.

Trackbacks

  1. Submitted 03/10/10…

    This week’s Watcher’s Council submissions are UP! Council Submissions Mere Rhetoric – Obama Giving Up On “Crippling” Iran Sanctions Colossus of Rhodey – More “logic” from that wisher of death upon Republicans Wolf Howling – The UK Through Labour…

  2. This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results!…

    As usual, my fellow members of the Watcher’s Council and I offered up some fine fare for you consideration. Here are the results of the voting. Winning Council Submissions First place with 2 2/3 points!  – JoshuaPundit – Obama Tells Israel T…

  3. Council speak 03/14/2010…

    The council has spoken. Here are the winners and runners up. One council member had 2/3 of a point deducted for not voting. Winning Council Submissions First place with 2 2/3 points! – JoshuaPundit – Obama Tells Israel They Have No Right To Their Relig…

Leave a Reply