abortion and obama's healthcare bill

[OnWisconsin]

Obama Administration Won't Rule Out Abortion Funding in National Health Care Bill

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 20, 2009

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>addthis_pub = 'sertelt';</SCRIPT> <SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></SCRIPT>

Email

RSS

Print ​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A top Obama administration official said in an interview on Sunday that he is not ruling out taxpayer funding or coverage for abortions in a national health care restructuring bill. The the Obama administration is considering funding abortions is prompting major abortion battles in the House and Senate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Peter Orszag, the head of the Office of Budget and Management, talked with Fox News Sunday about abortion funding.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Obama budget chief would not rule out funding abortions but said he doesn't have an answer right now about whether abortion funding will or won't be included.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I think that that will wind up being part of the debate. I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing out in this debate," Orszag said. "I'm not prepared to rule it out."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Congress is currently considering a handful of health care reform bills that will eventually be combined into one package that will be sent to Obama for his signature. The bills currently set up the decision-making for inclusion of abortion with the Obama administration.

On June 19, the House Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor announced that a new Obama-run Advisory Committee will decide which services will be covered.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican urged the Obama administration not to fund abortions in the government health care package and said doing so could hurt the debate to reform the health care system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"No matter what your views are on abortion, you shouldn't ask people to use their tax dollars if they think that abortion is taking a life -- to use their tax dollars for those purpose -- for that purpose," he told Fox News.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I would hate to see the health care debate go down over that issue," Gregg added. "We do really need health care reform, and it has to be substantive ... So hopefully we won't get ourselves wrapped around the wheel of abortion in this debate."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Early this week, another House committee will consider an amendment to make sure a government-funded health care restructuring plan does not include abortion. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The House Energy and Commerce Committee could see the next vote on abortion and health care as it considers HR 3200 on either today or Tuesday.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When the committee takes up the bill for possible amendments, pro-life Rep. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican, plans to offer three to make the bill abortion neutral.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Under the proposed legislation, virtually every individual will be required to have health care coverage that meets “minimum benefits standards” established by the administration.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Those minimum benefits will include abortion unless Congress acts to explicitly exclude abortion from any government mandated coverage or taxpayer funded health plan. Historical experience with federal statutes demonstrates that if abortion is not explicitly excluded, administrative agencies and the courts will mandate it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"There is no doubt that this process will result in mandated coverage of abortion, along with federal subsidies for such coverage, unless Congress explicitly excludes abortion," Pitts said in a statement LifeNews.com received.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pitts said Congress can't leave the determination on abortion up to the Obama administration because Obama has said “reproductive care is essential care, basic care" and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has added, “reproductive health includes access to abortion.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pitts said that pro-life advocates had to include amendments to annual spending bills covering Medicaid and the Indian Health Service because the federal government began paying for abortions without Congressional approval.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When it comes to HR 3200, Pitts says the bill must include abortion exclusions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Under this bill, any individual who does not have a plan that meets the minimum benefit standards will be forced to pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty. And any employer who does not provide coverage that meets these standards will pay up to an 8 percent tax penalty," he said. "This means that Americans who do not want a plan that pays for abortion will be penalized for it."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In addition to mandating coverage of abortion, this bill will provide massive subsidies for abortion. It will authorize and appropriate funding for premium subsidies," he added.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When Pitts submits his amendments, they will have the support of pro-life groups like the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ACTION: Contact members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and urge strong support for the Pitts amendment to exclude abortion from the health care bill, HR 3200. Call 202-224-3121 or go to http://www.House.gov for specific contact information.
[/FONT]

 

[artiesliver]

Great! (Note: sarcasm)

I believe in a woman's right to choose. I just don't believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion on my tax dollars.

 

[barman]

I'm pretty much okey dokey with a portion of my federal tax dollars going to subsidize what can be life-saving medical procedures. And in most cases, terminating an unwanted pregnancy can be a real life-saver for the future of a woman and/or her family.

 

[artiesliver]

Life saving procedure, absolute extreme cases, I am ok with. As for the unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, IMO, they should pony up the cash themselves.

 

[OnWisconsin]

it seems like there could be a lawsuit in here somewhere. if i remember hearing right after sotomeyer, the supreme court will still be fairly split, although the next obama supreme court nominee will tilt the scales.

now, abortion is a debate that both sides have passionate ideas about, for and against. but can our government mandate that someone of a strong Catholic faith will be forced to fund what he strongly believes is immoral?

and i'm surprised this issue hasn't been in the news until yesterday. the wall street journal also had a piece on it yesterday if someone doesn't believe the article above.

 

[OnWisconsin]

Life saving procedure, absolute extreme cases, I am ok with. As for the unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, IMO, they should pony up the cash themselves.

i agree. abortion as birth control is wrong, but i am willing to stay away from the "when life begins question". i do think aborting a child once it can survive outside the womb -- whether or not on life support --is wrong. but considering the arousal this argument rasies from both sides, is it smart for the government to fund abortions with tax payer dollars? most of the blue dogs are against this, and i think there will be language stripping the measure from the bill, but if not....wow....

 

[barman]

My short post likely did not deliver my personal belief that nearly ALL abortions result in a life-saving experience for the woman involved, when compared to the alternative of delivering the unwanted pregnancy to term.

You're a more occasional visitor to the Rx PoliticoPub, P.....(smile) so may not be fully versed that I'm the guy who promotes government funded abortion clinics that include Express Lane service for any woman who wants one.

Oh and to be clear, I also promote increased education and access to birth control methods so that unwanted pregnancies are reduced.

I believe that having a child is a decision that should be given the utmost foresight and serious contemplation. And anyone not ready for it is likely best served to run...no wait...DRIVE FAST...to the nearest available licensed doctor to end the pregnancy ASAP.

 

[barman]

....but can our government mandate that someone of a strong Catholic faith will be forced to fund what he strongly believes is immoral?

oh yeah

Most any of us - from a virtually unlimited range of faiths and moral codes - could opt out of paying taxes (both income and other taxes which go to local/state or federal govs) if such exemptions were permitted.

As an example, I personally have a strong moral disagreement with using the US military to kill people in other countries which have not declared war against my country.

But unfortunately that honest and deeply held moral code would not likely allow me to prevail were I to file a lawsuit against the US government seeking a refund of the portion of my tax dollars which go to fund such military operations.

I'm sure that you and anyone else reading this thread could make quite a list of ways that your tax dollars are used with which you strongly object on moral grounds.

 

[OnWisconsin]

My short post likely did not deliver my personal belief that nearly ALL abortions result in a life-saving experience for the woman involved, when compared to the alternative of delivering the unwanted pregnancy to term.

You're a more occasional visitor to the Rx PoliticoPub, P.....(smile) so may not be fully versed that I'm the guy who promotes government funded abortion clinics that include Express Lane service for any woman who wants one.

Oh and to be clear, I also promote increased education and access to birth control methods so that unwanted pregnancies are reduced.

I believe that having a child is a decision that should be given the utmost foresight and serious contemplation. And anyone not ready for it is likely best served to run...no wait...DRIVE FAST...to the nearest available licensed doctor to end the pregnancy ASAP.

nah, i've seen enough of your posts to know where you stand on the issue, although i do feel you're a bit facetious sometimes. but you always back your views up, so i can respect that. personally, my symapthies to the woman involved are not as kind as yours, but i guess that's why people like to debate...

 

[OnWisconsin]

oh yeah

Most any of us - from a virtually unlimited range of faiths and moral codes - could opt out of paying taxes (both income and other taxes which go to local/state or federal govs) if such exemptions were permitted.

As an example, I personally have a strong moral disagreement with using the US military to kill people in other countries which have not declared war against my country.

But unfortunately that honest and deeply held moral code would not likely allow me to prevail were I to file a lawsuit against the US government seeking a refund of the portion of my tax dollars which go to fund such military operations.

I'm sure that you and anyone else reading this thread could make quite a list of ways that your tax dollars are used with which you strongly object on moral grounds.

yeah, that's true, but there's gonna be some mad motherfuckers if they find out they're paying for abortions. i've been meaning to study up on the Constitution, because that's something everybody wants to bring up every time they think they're getting ass raped over something. if this happens, there's gonna be a lawyer out who will be made famous overnight....if i hadn't lost my left nut in last week's poker game i'd be willing to bet it...

 

[artiesliver]

IMO, life begins when the baby is conceived. However, that is my opinion and I am not trying to force it upon anyone else.

I will say that once I saw my daughter in the womb during my wife's 20 week sonogram, there was no doubt that this was a living human being. Now that same living being is a beautiful 3 month old girl, who spits up on me with regularity and for some reason was being a pain in the ass about falling asleep tonight,.....but I love her more than anything I've ever loved in the world and cannot imagine the thought of any fetus ever being terminated.

 

[OnWisconsin]

IMO, life begins when the baby is conceived. However, that is my opinion and I am not trying to force it upon anyone else.

I will say that once I saw my daughter in the womb during my wife's 20 week sonogram, there was no doubt that this was a living human being. Now that same living being is a beautiful 3 month old girl, who spits up on me with regularity and for some reason was being a pain in the ass about falling asleep tonight,.....but I love her more than anything I've ever loved in the world and cannot imagine the thought of any fetus ever being terminated.

God bless....

 

[artiesliver]

God bless....

Thanks.

 

[artiesliver]

What about providing healthcare to prisoners, be they state or federal? Where do we draw the line on moral issues?

And just because a majority of people believe in something, does that make it right or wrong? Maybe that's a question that the pre-WWII Germans should've asked.

Morality is next to impossible to legislate.

 

[artiesliver]

You're a more occasional visitor to the Rx PoliticoPub, P.....(smile) so may not be fully versed that I'm the guy who promotes government funded abortion clinics that include Express Lane service for any woman who wants one.

I realize you said Government funded, but if it was Government run, there would be nothing close to resembling an Express Lane. Maybe a slow and slower lane, but gov't and express don't coexist.

 

[OnWisconsin]

What about providing healthcare to prisoners, be they state or federal? Where do we draw the line on moral issues?

And just because a majority of people believe in something, does that make it right or wrong? Maybe that's a question that the pre-WWII Germans should've asked.

Morality is next to impossible to legislate.

it is. i think most would agree that they don't mind paying taxes to keep criminals behind bars, and considering the number of anti-death penalty opponents (many of whom happen to be staunch supporters of abortion), it would be wrong to deny health benefits to prisoners. there have been cases where costly measure have been taken to save a man's life who was only days away from execution!

 

[punter]

I guess that your are talking about people who think as I.

It is my opinion that anyone that supports the death penalty is someone that has not bothered to fully educate themselves on the issue.

 

[OnWisconsin]

I guess that your are talking about people who think as I.

It is my opinion that anyone that supports the death penalty is someone that has not bothered to fully educate themselves on the issue.

so you support abortion as a birth control option but oppose the death penalty?

 

[punter]

You see a connection?

 

[OnWisconsin]

nah, only in my previous post i stated that a lot of the same people who believe in abortion also staunchly oppose the death penalty....so i take it that i can assume you're against abortion and the death penalty?